A part of me really hopes that was the judges intent when he threw out the case.
Considering it should have been ridiculously easy to establish that one gang or the other was "engaged in an illegal activity," it probably was.
However, I'm not quite as down with the idea.
Agreed. If that was the case, letting the killer of a 15 year old child off is too high of a price to pay to make a point, especially when you consider that the ruling can be cited as precedent.
Upon further googling, it turns out that "15 year old child" was also a gang member. And it was the 15 year old who opened fire first.
A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against two men accused in a deadly gang shootout on Holton Street.
Judge Terry Lewis says Jeffrey Brown and Andrea Tyler were standing their ground the night that 15 year old Michael Jackson was shot in February 2008.
"I find from the evidence, both sides to this shootout expected, anticipated and even welcomed the additional confrontation," Judge Terry Lewis wrote in his order.
Lewis's ruling included the fact that Independent witnesses testified that Jackson and his friend, Jamal Taylor, fired the first shots in the confrontation.
The 2 suspects weren't facing a hypothetical possibility or implication of being in mortal danger, a guy was shooting a gun at them. They returned fire. Does their status as gang members mean they can never defend themselves from someone who is already shooting?
If that "15 year old child" had opened fire on 2 cops instead of 2 rival gang members, the 15 year old would be just as dead today, and no one would question it. If it'd been a 15 year old Afghani kid opening fire on 2 US soldiers in Afghanistan, that would be ruled a clean shoot as well.
Thanks for the additional facts, which certainly impact my assessment of the situation. That said, I actually don't think it would be that outrageous for us to treat self defense and stand your ground laws differently for gang members. If two gangs are at each other's throats and it is basically a shoot on sight situation, then what is to stop members of those gangs from both simultaneously pulling their guns and opening on fire when they see each other, and both claiming it was because they feared for their lives? This might be somewhat fanciful, but the implications of approving any gang related killing are pretty frightening.
I don't think the analogy to the police is fair, since the law treats police differently from other people in many cases, such as if you steal their hat or push them.
Sounds like a good reason to get ride of Stand Your Ground laws, rather than making a "Laws Apply Differently to Gang Members" law.
Even without SYG, I don't know that the situation would've been any different. The Duty to Retreat is only if you can safely do so. The suspects in the case were already under fire. It's not like they could have turned and out-ran the incoming bullets - if anything, breaking from cover would likely put them in more danger.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A part of me really hopes that was the judges intent when he threw out the case.
Considering it should have been ridiculously easy to establish that one gang or the other was "engaged in an illegal activity," it probably was.
However, I'm not quite as down with the idea.
Agreed. If that was the case, letting the killer of a 15 year old child off is too high of a price to pay to make a point, especially when you consider that the ruling can be cited as precedent.
Upon further googling, it turns out that "15 year old child" was also a gang member. And it was the 15 year old who opened fire first.
A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against two men accused in a deadly gang shootout on Holton Street.
Judge Terry Lewis says Jeffrey Brown and Andrea Tyler were standing their ground the night that 15 year old Michael Jackson was shot in February 2008.
"I find from the evidence, both sides to this shootout expected, anticipated and even welcomed the additional confrontation," Judge Terry Lewis wrote in his order.
Lewis's ruling included the fact that Independent witnesses testified that Jackson and his friend, Jamal Taylor, fired the first shots in the confrontation.
The 2 suspects weren't facing a hypothetical possibility or implication of being in mortal danger, a guy was shooting a gun at them. They returned fire. Does their status as gang members mean they can never defend themselves from someone who is already shooting?
If that "15 year old child" had opened fire on 2 cops instead of 2 rival gang members, the 15 year old would be just as dead today, and no one would question it. If it'd been a 15 year old Afghani kid opening fire on 2 US soldiers in Afghanistan, that would be ruled a clean shoot as well.
Thanks for the additional facts, which certainly impact my assessment of the situation. That said, I actually don't think it would be that outrageous for us to treat self defense and stand your ground laws differently for gang members. If two gangs are at each other's throats and it is basically a shoot on sight situation, then what is to stop members of those gangs from both simultaneously pulling their guns and opening on fire when they see each other, and both claiming it was because they feared for their lives? This might be somewhat fanciful, but the implications of approving any gang related killing are pretty frightening.
I don't think the analogy to the police is fair, since the law treats police differently from other people in many cases, such as if you steal their hat or push them.
Sounds like a good reason to get ride of Stand Your Ground laws, rather than making a "Laws Apply Differently to Gang Members" law.
No.
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
Yes, CNN, CLEARLY the release of Whitney Houstan's toxicology report is of grave enough importance to justify cutting off the pleading of a mother for justice in the case of her child's likely-racially-motivated killing. Jesus Christ.
Dead people hierarchy:
Michael Jackson > Blond white celebrity > non-blond white celebrity > blond white girl > non-blond white girl > white male > non-white celebrity > non-white person > poor person
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
A part of me really hopes that was the judges intent when he threw out the case.
Considering it should have been ridiculously easy to establish that one gang or the other was "engaged in an illegal activity," it probably was.
However, I'm not quite as down with the idea.
Agreed. If that was the case, letting the killer of a 15 year old child off is too high of a price to pay to make a point, especially when you consider that the ruling can be cited as precedent.
Upon further googling, it turns out that "15 year old child" was also a gang member. And it was the 15 year old who opened fire first.
A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against two men accused in a deadly gang shootout on Holton Street.
Judge Terry Lewis says Jeffrey Brown and Andrea Tyler were standing their ground the night that 15 year old Michael Jackson was shot in February 2008.
"I find from the evidence, both sides to this shootout expected, anticipated and even welcomed the additional confrontation," Judge Terry Lewis wrote in his order.
Lewis's ruling included the fact that Independent witnesses testified that Jackson and his friend, Jamal Taylor, fired the first shots in the confrontation.
The 2 suspects weren't facing a hypothetical possibility or implication of being in mortal danger, a guy was shooting a gun at them. They returned fire. Does their status as gang members mean they can never defend themselves from someone who is already shooting?
If that "15 year old child" had opened fire on 2 cops instead of 2 rival gang members, the 15 year old would be just as dead today, and no one would question it. If it'd been a 15 year old Afghani kid opening fire on 2 US soldiers in Afghanistan, that would be ruled a clean shoot as well.
Thanks for the additional facts, which certainly impact my assessment of the situation. That said, I actually don't think it would be that outrageous for us to treat self defense and stand your ground laws differently for gang members. If two gangs are at each other's throats and it is basically a shoot on sight situation, then what is to stop members of those gangs from both simultaneously pulling their guns and opening on fire when they see each other, and both claiming it was because they feared for their lives? This might be somewhat fanciful, but the implications of approving any gang related killing are pretty frightening.
I don't think the analogy to the police is fair, since the law treats police differently from other people in many cases, such as if you steal their hat or push them.
Sounds like a good reason to get ride of Stand Your Ground laws, rather than making a "Laws Apply Differently to Gang Members" law.
No.
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
Even if their weapons were illegal, it still seems more like self-defense to me than murder. The guy they shot was already shooting at them first. It doesn't seem right to say "Because you have an illegally-purchased gun, you're not allowed to defend yourself against a person who is actively trying to kill you."
Get them for illegal weapons charges, sure. But murder? I'm having trouble with that one.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
A part of me really hopes that was the judges intent when he threw out the case.
Considering it should have been ridiculously easy to establish that one gang or the other was "engaged in an illegal activity," it probably was.
However, I'm not quite as down with the idea.
Agreed. If that was the case, letting the killer of a 15 year old child off is too high of a price to pay to make a point, especially when you consider that the ruling can be cited as precedent.
Upon further googling, it turns out that "15 year old child" was also a gang member. And it was the 15 year old who opened fire first.
A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against two men accused in a deadly gang shootout on Holton Street.
Judge Terry Lewis says Jeffrey Brown and Andrea Tyler were standing their ground the night that 15 year old Michael Jackson was shot in February 2008.
"I find from the evidence, both sides to this shootout expected, anticipated and even welcomed the additional confrontation," Judge Terry Lewis wrote in his order.
Lewis's ruling included the fact that Independent witnesses testified that Jackson and his friend, Jamal Taylor, fired the first shots in the confrontation.
The 2 suspects weren't facing a hypothetical possibility or implication of being in mortal danger, a guy was shooting a gun at them. They returned fire. Does their status as gang members mean they can never defend themselves from someone who is already shooting?
If that "15 year old child" had opened fire on 2 cops instead of 2 rival gang members, the 15 year old would be just as dead today, and no one would question it. If it'd been a 15 year old Afghani kid opening fire on 2 US soldiers in Afghanistan, that would be ruled a clean shoot as well.
Thanks for the additional facts, which certainly impact my assessment of the situation. That said, I actually don't think it would be that outrageous for us to treat self defense and stand your ground laws differently for gang members. If two gangs are at each other's throats and it is basically a shoot on sight situation, then what is to stop members of those gangs from both simultaneously pulling their guns and opening on fire when they see each other, and both claiming it was because they feared for their lives? This might be somewhat fanciful, but the implications of approving any gang related killing are pretty frightening.
I don't think the analogy to the police is fair, since the law treats police differently from other people in many cases, such as if you steal their hat or push them.
Sounds like a good reason to get ride of Stand Your Ground laws, rather than making a "Laws Apply Differently to Gang Members" law.
No.
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
Even if their weapons were illegal, it still seems more like self-defense to me than murder. The guy they shot was already shooting at them first. It doesn't seem right to say "Because you have an illegally-purchased gun, you're not allowed to defend yourself against a person who is actively trying to kill you."
Get them for illegal weapons charges, sure. But murder? I'm having trouble with that one.
They would get a trial because they would be charged, doesn't mean they would be convicted. The way Stand Your Ground is currently written, they can't even be charged. All my adjustment would do is remove the immunity from prosecution for people who had the weapon illegally.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
In a related (with regards to Stand Your Ground) case, a FL judge has ruled that a person who chased a burglar for a block before stabbing the burglar to death was acting in self-defense under the SYG standard.
a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the [Stand Your Ground] law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.
Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.
This seems as bogus a ruling as what people fear will happen in the Zimmerman case. The burglar was running away from the "victim" for more than a block.
The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”
Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.
WTF. Garcia feared he was going to be stabbed, even though he never saw a weapon? What the heck was Roteta going stab him with? Is Roteta actually Wolverine, does he have retractable knives in his hands?
BubbaT on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
On MSNBC the Sanford police chief has temporarily left the office over handling the case.
I saw that too.
how do you "temporarily" resign? I thought resignation was a binary state? I mean, I could see saying it as taking a leave of absence or something.
Same here.
Any word whether the officers who were reported by the media doing seriously suspicious behavior investigating the case, like trying to convince the witness statements into something better for the killer, are being treated the same?
In a related (with regards to Stand Your Ground) case, a FL judge has ruled that a person who chased a burglar for a block before stabbing the burglar to death was acting in self-defense under the SYG standard.
a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the [Stand Your Ground] law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.
Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.
This seems as bogus a ruling as what people fear will happen in the Zimmerman case. The burglar was running away from the "victim" for more than a block.
The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”
Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.
WTF. Garcia feared he was going to be stabbed, even though he never saw a weapon? What the heck was Roteta going stab him with? Is Roteta actually Wolverine, does he have retractable knives in his hands?
Sigh...
Once again, it's not the law that is flawed, it's the people who can't seem to grasp it's purpose or intent.
That judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred for incompetence.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
In a related (with regards to Stand Your Ground) case, a FL judge has ruled that a person who chased a burglar for a block before stabbing the burglar to death was acting in self-defense under the SYG standard.
a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the [Stand Your Ground] law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.
Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.
This seems as bogus a ruling as what people fear will happen in the Zimmerman case. The burglar was running away from the "victim" for more than a block.
The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”
Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.
WTF. Garcia feared he was going to be stabbed, even though he never saw a weapon? What the heck was Roteta going stab him with? Is Roteta actually Wolverine, does he have retractable knives in his hands?
Sigh...
Once again, it's not the law that is flawed, it's the people who can't seem to grasp it's purpose or intent.
That judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred for incompetence.
The article touches on that, too.
The Florida Supreme Court has said that the question of whether the immunity applies in each case should be decided by a judge, not a jury.
“Self-defense should be decided by a jury,” Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains prosecutors on the law, said after Wednesday’s ruling. “To us, that’s the flaw in the law.”
Not vigilantism, that would require Martin doing an illegal act before getting shot. This was cold blooded murder.
Yeah, any snarky comment I could come up with about how fucked up this is seems pretty pointless. There is absolutely nothing to say here other than it's completely sickening that it ain't no big thing to murder a fellow human being in Florida as long as you say it was self defense. And the victim is black of course.
I really hope a shitstorm ensues when a white person is killed using this as justification and the police actually take it seriously.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
In a related (with regards to Stand Your Ground) case, a FL judge has ruled that a person who chased a burglar for a block before stabbing the burglar to death was acting in self-defense under the SYG standard.
a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the [Stand Your Ground] law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.
Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.
This seems as bogus a ruling as what people fear will happen in the Zimmerman case. The burglar was running away from the "victim" for more than a block.
The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”
Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.
WTF. Garcia feared he was going to be stabbed, even though he never saw a weapon? What the heck was Roteta going stab him with? Is Roteta actually Wolverine, does he have retractable knives in his hands?
Sigh...
Once again, it's not the law that is flawed, it's the people who can't seem to grasp it's purpose or intent.
That judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred for incompetence.
The article touches on that, too.
The Florida Supreme Court has said that the question of whether the immunity applies in each case should be decided by a judge, not a jury.
“Self-defense should be decided by a jury,” Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains prosecutors on the law, said after Wednesday’s ruling. “To us, that’s the flaw in the law.”
I would say it should go like this:
Police make initial determination of self defense claim, they forward their findings to the state attorney.
State attorney decides to prosecute or not based on evidence. If evidence does not support self defense, a grand jury is convened.
Grand jury decides if stand your ground law is applicable. If not, then charges are filed. If so, immunity stands.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Not vigilantism, that would require Martin doing an illegal act before getting shot. This was cold blooded murder.
Yeah, any snarky comment I could come up with about how fucked up this is seems pretty pointless. There is absolutely nothing to say here other than it's completely sickening that it ain't no big thing to murder a fellow human being in Florida as long as you say it was self defense. And the victim is black of course.
I really hope a shitstorm ensues when a white person is killed using this as justification and the police actually take it seriously.
The only shitstorm that will occur under those circumstances is that the minority who does that is going to punished in the media and Florida's beyond fucked up legal system.
I really hope a shitstorm ensues when a white person is killed using this as justification and the police actually take it seriously.
The police took that stabbing case seriously. So did prosecutors, they were pushing for 2nd degree murder. Even with that, SYG protected a (alleged) murderer.
The law simply needs to be re-written. Even its original authors say it's being interpreted incorrectly.
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
This is a terrible solution. If you are defending your life, what should it matter if the weapon you use is illegal? Absolutely you should be convicted for possession of an illegal weapon, but saying someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves is silly.
The solution is to remove the stand your ground law. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
In a related (with regards to Stand Your Ground) case, a FL judge has ruled that a person who chased a burglar for a block before stabbing the burglar to death was acting in self-defense under the SYG standard.
a Miami-Dade judge on Wednesday cited the [Stand Your Ground] law in tossing out the case of a man who chased down a suspected burglar and stabbed him to death.
Greyston Garcia was charged with second-degree murder in the slaying of Pedro Roteta, 26, whom he chased for more than a block before stabbing the man.
This seems as bogus a ruling as what people fear will happen in the Zimmerman case. The burglar was running away from the "victim" for more than a block.
The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.
Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.
The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.
After initially denying involvement in the man’s death, Garcia admitted to homicide detectives that he attacked Roteta even though “he actually never saw a weapon.”
Garcia claimed Roteta made a move that he interpreted as a move to stab him — so he struck first.
WTF. Garcia feared he was going to be stabbed, even though he never saw a weapon? What the heck was Roteta going stab him with? Is Roteta actually Wolverine, does he have retractable knives in his hands?
Sigh...
Once again, it's not the law that is flawed, it's the people who can't seem to grasp it's purpose or intent.
That judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred for incompetence.
The problem is that the law as written doesn't not seem to match the legislative intent expressed in media outlets by state lawmakers after the Trayvon Martin shooting. For instance, while you borrowed from one such lawmaker the argument that the law is not meant to protect someone who initiated contact, the law does not list who initiated contact as a qualifying or disqualifying criteria for the application of the law. The law does generally exclude those who provoke an initial use of force against themselves, but there is a caveat which extends the protection even to those whom actually provoked the confrontation provided that "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."
Many years ago, I once used force to defend myself against an assault, but even as someone who has had to use self defense as a justification for nearly killing another man, I think the stand your ground law as Florida has it on the books is fundamentally retarded.
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
This is a terrible solution. If you are defending your life, what should it matter if the weapon you use is illegal? Absolutely you should be convicted for possession of an illegal weapon, but saying someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves is silly.
The solution is to remove the stand your ground law. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
Even though the police, especially the commissioner in the Martin case have done a pretty miserable job
It's sort of hard not to commiserate a little bit. They're stuck having to follow an absolutely insane law that gives more leeway on the use of deadly force to private citizens than trained police officers. I'm sure a lot of the police themselves are fucking pissed over this case. More than anything the responsibility lies with the lawmakers who passed this crazy law despite being warned what a shitstorm it would create. The judges and police are just stuck enforcing it.
Seriously, who are these people who watch westerns and go, "yes, this is how I think modern society should operate. This seems like a good idea."
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Even though the police, especially the commissioner in the Martin case have done a pretty miserable job
It's sort of hard not to commiserate a little bit. They're stuck having to follow an absolutely insane law that gives more leeway on the use of deadly force to private citizens than trained police officers. I'm sure a lot of the police themselves are fucking pissed over this case. More than anything the responsibility lies with the lawmakers who passed this crazy law despite being warned what a shitstorm it would create. The judges and police are just stuck enforcing it.
Seriously, who are these people who watch westerns and go, "yes, this is how I think modern society should operate. This seems like a good idea."
The NRA.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Not just the NRA, but the whole concept of "Criminals made their choice." As though that justifies anything you do in return. It permeates the idea behind Stand Your Ground, mandatory minimums, lack of action on prison rape. If someone commits a crime, no one cares about all the horrible stuff that happens to them as a result, even if it it vastly outweighs the crime.
You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
Just remember the police do not have a duty to prevent crime, only to arrest those who commit crimes after the fact (Warren v. District of Columbia). Frankly I'd rather take my chances defending myself on the spot, than hope I can outrun someone trying to do me harm.
You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
Just remember the police do not have a duty to prevent crime, only to arrest those who commit crimes after the fact (Warren v. District of Columbia). Frankly I'd rather take my chances defending myself on the spot, than hope I can outrun someone trying to do me harm.
States without Stand Your Ground laws don't require you to run away.
But good try.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
This is a terrible solution. If you are defending your life, what should it matter if the weapon you use is illegal? Absolutely you should be convicted for possession of an illegal weapon, but saying someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves is silly.
The solution is to remove the stand your ground law. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
I agree that the law should be repealed, but, if we assume the law is not ripe for repeal, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable modification to me. At least that way we are requiring someone to have been approve for gun ownership as a prerequisite for invoking the defense. But to be fair, I'm also really biased against gangs, and will almost never object to a law which will help get gang members off the streets.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
1.) You don't have to commiserate with these idiots; they're not following the law as written.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
This is a terrible solution. If you are defending your life, what should it matter if the weapon you use is illegal? Absolutely you should be convicted for possession of an illegal weapon, but saying someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves is silly.
The solution is to remove the stand your ground law. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
I agree that the law should be repealed, but, if we assume the law is not ripe for repeal, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable modification to me. At least that way we are requiring someone to have been approve for gun ownership as a prerequisite for invoking the defense. But to be fair, I'm also really biased against gangs, and will almost never object to a law which will help get gang members off the streets.
The modification as suggested doesn't do anything to address situations in which the gang member hasn't been disqualified from the possession of a firearm by a prior conviction. Dcmbr made a fairly radical leap in assuming that because "gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally," that adding the illegal possession of a firearm in as a disqualifying criteria will prevent all gang members from using the Stand Your Ground statutes as a legal defense.
States without Stand Your Ground laws don't require you to run away.
But good try.
States without Stand Your Ground laws are also covered in the Supreme Court case I mentioned. If your life is in danger I would think you have would have bigger immediate concerns than whether it is a stand your ground state or not.
1.) You don't have to commiserate with these idiots; they're not following the law as written.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Just a few things to remember
1. Yes they are. The stabbing case? He thought he was being attacked, and that's all the law requires as written.
2. Not as written.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally, ergo the Stand Your Ground law should not apply. That's all the needs to be done. Write into the law "if the victim is in possession of a firearm illegally, then all protections provided by this law are null and void."
Done.
No reason to punish people who defend themselves legally from violent crimes.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
This is a terrible solution. If you are defending your life, what should it matter if the weapon you use is illegal? Absolutely you should be convicted for possession of an illegal weapon, but saying someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves is silly.
The solution is to remove the stand your ground law. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
I agree that the law should be repealed, but, if we assume the law is not ripe for repeal, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable modification to me. At least that way we are requiring someone to have been approve for gun ownership as a prerequisite for invoking the defense. But to be fair, I'm also really biased against gangs, and will almost never object to a law which will help get gang members off the streets.
The modification as suggested doesn't do anything to address situations in which the gang member hasn't been disqualified from the possession of a firearm by a prior conviction. Dcmbr made a fairly radical leap in assuming that because "gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally," that adding the illegal possession of a firearm in as a disqualifying criteria will prevent all gang members from using the Stand Your Ground statutes as a legal defense.
On further thought, I agree. The only purpose of this modification would be to take away the ability for the defense to be legitimately used by a certain class of people, so it is inconsistent with the law, and only desirable in that the law itself is a bad thing, so limiting its scope may be a second best alternative to repeal.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
1.) You don't have to commiserate with these idiots; they're not following the law as written.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Just a few things to remember
1. Yes they are. The stabbing case? He thought he was being attacked, and that's all the law requires as written.
2. Not as written.
1.) You still have to prove it.
2.) Do you understand the phrase "the idea behind"?
1.) You don't have to commiserate with these idiots; they're not following the law as written.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Just a few things to remember
1. Yes they are. The stabbing case? He thought he was being attacked, and that's all the law requires as written.
2. Not as written.
1.) You still have to prove it.
2.) Do you understand the phrase "the idea behind"?
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
The law explicitly states the presumption of a reasonable fear because the burglar either had or was in the process of lawfully or forcefully entering the property.
Also, on point the second: "the idea behind" is described as "legislative intent." When a statute is clear and unambiguous in its language, courts are generally not allowed to consider legislative intent in the interpretation of that statute.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
1.) You don't have to commiserate with these idiots; they're not following the law as written.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Just a few things to remember
1. Yes they are. The stabbing case? He thought he was being attacked, and that's all the law requires as written.
2. Not as written.
1.) You still have to prove it.
2.) Do you understand the phrase "the idea behind"?
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
The law explicitly states the presumption of a reasonable fear because the burglar either had or was in the process of lawfully or forcefully entering the property.
Also, on point the second: "the idea behind" is described as "legislative intent." When a statute is clear and unambiguous in its language, courts are generally not allowed to consider legislative intent in the interpretation of that statute.
I wasn't talking about the law as written, I was talking about the idea behind it. I would rewrite the law and make it much harder to call "self defense!"
That still doesn't remove that fact that the State is actually doing its job here.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi announced tonight that they have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the Orlando Sentinel says.
State Attorney Angela B. Corey replaces State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, who had been handling the investigation since Sanford police handed over the case last week, according to a statement from Scott's office.
Scott also named Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll to lead a task force after Corey completes her investigation. The task force will "conduct public hearings, take testimony and recommend actions – legislative and otherwise – to both protect our citizens and safeguard our rights," Scott said.
1.) You don't have to commiserate with these idiots; they're not following the law as written.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Just a few things to remember
1. Yes they are. The stabbing case? He thought he was being attacked, and that's all the law requires as written.
2. Not as written.
1.) You still have to prove it.
2.) Do you understand the phrase "the idea behind"?
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
The law explicitly states the presumption of a reasonable fear because the burglar either had or was in the process of lawfully or forcefully entering the property.
Also, on point the second: "the idea behind" is described as "legislative intent." When a statute is clear and unambiguous in its language, courts are generally not allowed to consider legislative intent in the interpretation of that statute.
I wasn't talking about the law as written, I was talking about the idea behind it. I would rewrite the law and make it much harder to call "self defense!"
That still doesn't remove that fact that the State is actually doing its job here.
What you specifically said was that the "the law requires a smart and effective legal system to support it," which suggested to me that you thought that the problem wasn't the language in the law but rather the inability of the courts to interpret its idea. Sorry about the confusion.
And I agree that the state actually is doing its job to the extent that the law allows. But the law says:
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.
Which is pretty much bullshit in my view. If there's any question over whether a homicide was justified -- any question at all, not just probable cause to believe that it wasn't -- the police and prosecutor should have the discretion over whether or not to pursue such a case, and the burden of proof should be up to the defendant to demonstrate that there was reasonable cause to believe &c.
In my case, I was issued a summons to answer a criminal complaint in the days following the incident. Which, honestly, is how it should have been. I broke a guy's skull in two places. He would have died without medical intervention. The State had a really good reason to ask me to appear in court so I could explain why.
Posts
Even without SYG, I don't know that the situation would've been any different. The Duty to Retreat is only if you can safely do so. The suspects in the case were already under fire. It's not like they could have turned and out-ran the incoming bullets - if anything, breaking from cover would likely put them in more danger.
This is a really simple and elegant solution. I think its great.
Dead people hierarchy:
Michael Jackson > Blond white celebrity > non-blond white celebrity > blond white girl > non-blond white girl > white male > non-white celebrity > non-white person > poor person
Even if their weapons were illegal, it still seems more like self-defense to me than murder. The guy they shot was already shooting at them first. It doesn't seem right to say "Because you have an illegally-purchased gun, you're not allowed to defend yourself against a person who is actively trying to kill you."
Get them for illegal weapons charges, sure. But murder? I'm having trouble with that one.
I saw that too.
how do you "temporarily" resign? I thought resignation was a binary state? I mean, I could see saying it as taking a leave of absence or something.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
They would get a trial because they would be charged, doesn't mean they would be convicted. The way Stand Your Ground is currently written, they can't even be charged. All my adjustment would do is remove the immunity from prosecution for people who had the weapon illegally.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html
This seems as bogus a ruling as what people fear will happen in the Zimmerman case. The burglar was running away from the "victim" for more than a block.
WTF. Garcia feared he was going to be stabbed, even though he never saw a weapon? What the heck was Roteta going stab him with? Is Roteta actually Wolverine, does he have retractable knives in his hands?
Interesting.
I thought Texas was the only state where hunting down and murdering people was legal
Same here.
Any word whether the officers who were reported by the media doing seriously suspicious behavior investigating the case, like trying to convince the witness statements into something better for the killer, are being treated the same?
Sigh...
Once again, it's not the law that is flawed, it's the people who can't seem to grasp it's purpose or intent.
That judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred for incompetence.
Not vigilantism, that would require Martin doing an illegal act before getting shot. This was cold blooded murder.
The article touches on that, too.
Yeah, any snarky comment I could come up with about how fucked up this is seems pretty pointless. There is absolutely nothing to say here other than it's completely sickening that it ain't no big thing to murder a fellow human being in Florida as long as you say it was self defense. And the victim is black of course.
I really hope a shitstorm ensues when a white person is killed using this as justification and the police actually take it seriously.
I was talking about the article BubbaT linked about the guy chasing down the guy who stole his radio and stabbed him to death. Totally legal!
I would say it should go like this:
Police make initial determination of self defense claim, they forward their findings to the state attorney.
State attorney decides to prosecute or not based on evidence. If evidence does not support self defense, a grand jury is convened.
Grand jury decides if stand your ground law is applicable. If not, then charges are filed. If so, immunity stands.
In that case, carry on.
The only shitstorm that will occur under those circumstances is that the minority who does that is going to punished in the media and Florida's beyond fucked up legal system.
The police took that stabbing case seriously. So did prosecutors, they were pushing for 2nd degree murder. Even with that, SYG protected a (alleged) murderer.
The law simply needs to be re-written. Even its original authors say it's being interpreted incorrectly.
This is a terrible solution. If you are defending your life, what should it matter if the weapon you use is illegal? Absolutely you should be convicted for possession of an illegal weapon, but saying someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves is silly.
The solution is to remove the stand your ground law. You have a right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to defend the spot you happen to be standing on if it means someone has to die for it. It is not your duty as a private citizen to take down criminals. You should be doing everything in your power to get away from the situation and let the fucking police handle it. Chances are pretty good that they are better trained and better equipped to handle the situation safely than you are.
Only when you have no recourse should you choose to stand your ground and fight for your life.
The problem is that the law as written doesn't not seem to match the legislative intent expressed in media outlets by state lawmakers after the Trayvon Martin shooting. For instance, while you borrowed from one such lawmaker the argument that the law is not meant to protect someone who initiated contact, the law does not list who initiated contact as a qualifying or disqualifying criteria for the application of the law. The law does generally exclude those who provoke an initial use of force against themselves, but there is a caveat which extends the protection even to those whom actually provoked the confrontation provided that "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."
Many years ago, I once used force to defend myself against an assault, but even as someone who has had to use self defense as a justification for nearly killing another man, I think the stand your ground law as Florida has it on the books is fundamentally retarded.
Agreed.
Even though the police, especially the commissioner in the Martin case have done a pretty miserable job
It's sort of hard not to commiserate a little bit. They're stuck having to follow an absolutely insane law that gives more leeway on the use of deadly force to private citizens than trained police officers. I'm sure a lot of the police themselves are fucking pissed over this case. More than anything the responsibility lies with the lawmakers who passed this crazy law despite being warned what a shitstorm it would create. The judges and police are just stuck enforcing it.
Seriously, who are these people who watch westerns and go, "yes, this is how I think modern society should operate. This seems like a good idea."
The NRA.
Just remember the police do not have a duty to prevent crime, only to arrest those who commit crimes after the fact (Warren v. District of Columbia). Frankly I'd rather take my chances defending myself on the spot, than hope I can outrun someone trying to do me harm.
States without Stand Your Ground laws don't require you to run away.
But good try.
I agree that the law should be repealed, but, if we assume the law is not ripe for repeal, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable modification to me. At least that way we are requiring someone to have been approve for gun ownership as a prerequisite for invoking the defense. But to be fair, I'm also really biased against gangs, and will almost never object to a law which will help get gang members off the streets.
2.) The idea behind Stand Your Ground is good and fine, but it needs a smart and effective legal system to support it.
3.) The State AG, the Feds, the Sanford city council, they're all doing their jobs and going after this thing.
Just a few things to remember
The modification as suggested doesn't do anything to address situations in which the gang member hasn't been disqualified from the possession of a firearm by a prior conviction. Dcmbr made a fairly radical leap in assuming that because "gang members are more than likely going to be carrying the firearm illegally," that adding the illegal possession of a firearm in as a disqualifying criteria will prevent all gang members from using the Stand Your Ground statutes as a legal defense.
States without Stand Your Ground laws are also covered in the Supreme Court case I mentioned. If your life is in danger I would think you have would have bigger immediate concerns than whether it is a stand your ground state or not.
1. Yes they are. The stabbing case? He thought he was being attacked, and that's all the law requires as written.
2. Not as written.
On further thought, I agree. The only purpose of this modification would be to take away the ability for the defense to be legitimately used by a certain class of people, so it is inconsistent with the law, and only desirable in that the law itself is a bad thing, so limiting its scope may be a second best alternative to repeal.
1.) You still have to prove it.
2.) Do you understand the phrase "the idea behind"?
Point the first:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
The law explicitly states the presumption of a reasonable fear because the burglar either had or was in the process of lawfully or forcefully entering the property.
Also, on point the second: "the idea behind" is described as "legislative intent." When a statute is clear and unambiguous in its language, courts are generally not allowed to consider legislative intent in the interpretation of that statute.
I wasn't talking about the law as written, I was talking about the idea behind it. I would rewrite the law and make it much harder to call "self defense!"
That still doesn't remove that fact that the State is actually doing its job here.
What you specifically said was that the "the law requires a smart and effective legal system to support it," which suggested to me that you thought that the problem wasn't the language in the law but rather the inability of the courts to interpret its idea. Sorry about the confusion.
And I agree that the state actually is doing its job to the extent that the law allows. But the law says:
Which is pretty much bullshit in my view. If there's any question over whether a homicide was justified -- any question at all, not just probable cause to believe that it wasn't -- the police and prosecutor should have the discretion over whether or not to pursue such a case, and the burden of proof should be up to the defendant to demonstrate that there was reasonable cause to believe &c.
In my case, I was issued a summons to answer a criminal complaint in the days following the incident. Which, honestly, is how it should have been. I broke a guy's skull in two places. He would have died without medical intervention. The State had a really good reason to ask me to appear in court so I could explain why.