The plot thickens
POSTED BY: whozit
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:37
VIEWED: 10592
PAGE 7 of 13
This shooting does not implicate a duty to retreat, or Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law. It will be decided under general principles of self-defense.
There are two competing shooting narratives. The first amounts to hagiography: St. Trayvon, an doe-eyed ingenue was stalked and shot by a crazed racist. The second is a restatement of popular attitudes regarding black teens: Zimmerman tried to leave the scene, only to be beat on by Trayvon, a gold-toothed thug who knows the lyrics to Lil' Wayne songs. I offer no opinion as to which narrative is more accurate; that's a jury's job.
The law generally allows folks to use deadly force when they reasonably believe they face imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. This has objective elements (the reasonableness standard) and subjective elements. There is little doubt that Zimmerman feared that he faced death or great bodily harm. The only question is: was his fear reasonable?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
The law generally allows folks to use deadly force when they reasonably believe they face imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. This has objective elements (the reasonableness standard) and subjective elements. There is little doubt that Zimmerman feared that he faced death or great bodily harm. The only question is: was his fear reasonable?
If he was being beat, yes his fear was reasonable.
That being said, the law generaly does not allow the use of deadly force if a person can retreat. The stand your ground law does allow the use of force as you discribed.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That being said, the law generaly does not allow the use of deadly force if a person can retreat."
Yeah. Run away. Don't stand tall for your family, your community, yourself.
Just run, till you can't run anymore. Then, maybe, stand up for yourself. Hopefully, you won't get jammed up.
Makes sense.
I mean, the alternative is to protect yourself, your family, your community. But thats not political.
Run. Its better.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The "duty to retreat", in both applicability and scope, varies between jurisdictions, but has been understood as rooted in analysis of the objective reasonableness of deadly force. In other words, if you could have avoided using deadly force by running and leaving a trial of coward's urine behind your yellow-striped bottom, then your fear of imminent death and/or grievous injury isn't reasonable.
Still don't think it really applies inasmuch as retreat must be possible, and the Zimmerman narrative suggests he was grounded and getting pounded on.
In the instant matter, assume Florida law imposes a duty to be a pussy/retreat when possible. In the narrative most favorable to Trayvon, Zimmerman stalked and shot him and has no right to self-defense. In the narrative most favorable to Zimmerman, there was an attack and Zimmerman had no ability to retreat (he was, apparently, on the ground being pummeled.) So the reasonableness of Zimmerman's fears is the issue, not his duty to be un-American and flee from an opportunity to apply cleansing, virtuous violence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"That being said, the law generaly does not allow the use of deadly force if a person can retreat."
Yeah. Run away. Don't stand tall for your family, your community, yourself.
Just run, till you can't run anymore. Then, maybe, stand up for yourself. Hopefully, you won't get jammed up.
Makes sense.
I mean, the alternative is to protect yourself, your family, your community. But thats not political.
Run. Its better.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
The duty to retreat is the law in a fair number of states. As I said, I like the idea of the stand your ground law, but not how it is been written. Zimmerman did not need to leave his car to help protect his community, that is the problem. He put himself and others in danger by his actions. Any time you add a gun to a situation you are putting everyone in the area at risk.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The law ought to impose a duty-to-whoop-ass, which is more consistent with American values of rugged individualism, and also John Wayne movies. Under this law, an individual who is presented with an opportunity to use deadly force in a manner which seems likely to be lawful, and does not immediately seize it, will have their nards removed. Note that the penalty is nard specific, because deadly force totally belongs to guys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Any time you add a gun to a situation you are putting everyone in the area at risk."
Then disarm the police.
Its not the weapon, its the hand that uses it. And how, and for what purpose.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
The "duty to retreat", in both applicability and scope, varies between jurisdictions, but has been understood as rooted in analysis of the objective reasonableness of deadly force. In other words, if you could have avoided using deadly force by running and leaving a trial of coward's urine behind your yellow-striped bottom, then your fear of imminent death and/or grievous injury isn't reasonable.
Still don't think it really applies inasmuch as retreat must be possible, and the Zimmerman narrative suggests he was grounded and getting pounded on.
In the instant matter, assume Florida law imposes a duty to be a pussy/retreat when possible. In the narrative most favorable to Trayvon, Zimmerman stalked and shot him and has no right to self-defense. In the narrative most favorable to Zimmerman, there was an attack and Zimmerman had no ability to retreat (he was, apparently, on the ground being pummeled.) So the reasonableness of Zimmerman's fears is the issue, not his duty to be un-American and flee from an opportunity to apply cleansing, virtuous violence.
Before we get into this let me make one thing clear. Walking away from a situation, or even running does not make someone a pussy or a coward. You need to tone down the macho bullshit right now.
Yes, if Martin had Zimmerman pinned down when Zimmerman shot he would not have had a way to retreat and would be covered by self-defence law. However if he had gotten to his feet he than would have had the duty to try and get away.
The stand your ground law simply eliminates that duty and says you have the right to stay where you are. That means that if you decide to stay put and are at risk of death or serious injury you can use deadly force. A Florida apeals court has even ruled that the law allows you to use deadly force if your attacker is feeling.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Any time you add a gun to a situation you are putting everyone in the area at risk."
Then disarm the police.
Its not the weapon, its the hand that uses it. And how, and for what purpose.
Disarming regular police officers is not a bad idea.
The thing is that your hand using the gun maybe fine. That does not mean the gun is going to stay in your hand.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
