|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 6:39:24 GMT
From the Task Force discussion so far:
Motions to amend ~
That doesn't sound right. For a start, what is "confrontation"? Merely following someone can hardly amount to that; there may be legitimate reasons for doing so. And if the pursued then turns round and challenges the pursuer, who then is confronting whom?
If he means that whoever starts a fight has no right to claim "stand your ground" that makes sense. But if the fight turns deadly and his life is threatened, should he not be able to rely upon old self-defence as we have always known it?
Some commentators say that "stand your ground" has no relevance to the Zimmerman case anyway, if what he claims happened is true.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 12:01:20 GMT
From the Task Force discussion so far: Motions to amend ~ That doesn't sound right. For a start, what is "confrontation"? Merely following someone can hardly amount to that; there may be legitimate reasons for doing so. And if the pursued then turns round and challenges the pursuer, who then is confronting whom? If he means that whoever starts a fight has no right to claim "stand your ground" that makes sense. But if the fight turns deadly and his life is threatened, should he not be able to rely upon old self-defence as we have always known it? Some commentators say that "stand your ground" has no relevance to the Zimmerman case anyway, if what he claims happened is true. stand your ground has NO relevance to zimmerman. he lost all claim to self defense when he got out of his car and followed martin. had he pulled up to martin when he first saw him, and politely inquired as to what he was doing, it is not likely that this incident would have occurred. instead, he chose to surreptitiously stalk martin. any reasonable person being so stalked would believe that the stalker presented a threat to their safety, and would have taken evasive action, which martin did. when zimmerman chose to get out of his car and continue chasing martin, martin had no choice but to defend himself. since zimmerman was the obvious aggressor, he had no claim to self defense, under ANY rational interpretation of the law. no, you don't get to use self defense when you are the aggressor simply because you are getting your ass kicked
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 12:08:53 GMT
rodriguez should be convicted. he initiated the confrontation, and, as i said, an aggressor loses any claim of self defense. he was NOT standing his ground. he had no business being on the ground that he was standing on. you can make a case, although not a good one, for the state not executing a thief. you cannot make a case of any kind for a person killing it in their house, or when it is trying to rob them. there is NO similarity whatsoever I think we agree. The Irish version of the law concerns someone entering your house. My feeling is that anyone illegally entering my house means to cause me harm and I cannot tell how much harm, therefore anything I do to that person will be in self defence. That person may not - probably does not - deserve to die but if that's the outcome I shouldn't feel any guilt or shame about it. I can extend this logic to a situation on the street where someone physically attacks me. But that's where SYG becomes confusing. I've been mugged before and had someone threaten to stab me: I've been pushed up against a wall by two people while they held a knife to me and said they would use it. Truth is I didn't believe them so I talked my way out of it. SYG seems to say that had I shot them I would have been justified -- but clearly I wouldn't have been. The evidence points to them never intending to do anything and they were just relying on my fear. If I'd had a knife or a gun, maybe I would have assessed the situation differently, maybe I would have skipped the negotiation stage. There is some statistic knocking around that says "justified homicides" have risen dramatically in states with SYG while regular homicides have stayed about the same. It's hard to tell if that statistic tells us that ''justified homicide" is being recorded differently or -- worryingly! -- if people are more likely to kill now that they are less likely to be punished for it. you did good until you got to: SYG seems to say that had I shot them I would have been justified -- but clearly I wouldn't have been. The evidence points to them never intending to do anything and they were just relying on my fear. they held a knife to you. that, all by itself, more than justifies your killing them. what evidence points to them never intending to do anything? the fact that two of them held you at knifepoint is conclusive proof that they DID intend to harm you if you had resisted. there is NO rational reason to acquiesce to trash like that. that is the law that has been rightfully changed. a lot of laws required that you retreat if you had the opportunity. in the civilized states, that moronic idea has been done away with. you have the god given right to kill a piece of shyt that is trying to harm you. besides that, you have a civic responsibility to kill it if you have the opportunity, to prevent it from victimizing anyone else, forever
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 12:11:06 GMT
i have not said that the death penalty is an appropriate and proportionate response to theft. the death penalty is a punishment meted out by the state, long after the crime has been committed. killing garbage breaking into your house, or trying to rob you on the street, is NOT. it IS the proportional response to a worthless piece of shyt's violation of you. for the record, it is the punk's choice to break into my house, or try to rob me, that it deserves to die for, not what is taken There are killings in order to defend life or limb and there are killings for revenge and punishment. If you get the drop on a burglar and they see you with your gun and put their hands in the air, then by pulling the trigger regardless you are not defending life or limb, you are punishing. The latter is not for a private citizen to decide to do. don't be daft. there is NO rational reason to ever give the trash the opportunity to raise their hands. there is NO rational reason to ever say a word to it, except perhaps, "bye bye azzhole". the second that it enters your house, you pull the trigger. that is what ALL intelligent people do
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 15, 2012 12:11:14 GMT
From the Task Force discussion so far: Motions to amend ~ That doesn't sound right. For a start, what is "confrontation"? Merely following someone can hardly amount to that; there may be legitimate reasons for doing so. And if the pursued then turns round and challenges the pursuer, who then is confronting whom? If he means that whoever starts a fight has no right to claim "stand your ground" that makes sense. But if the fight turns deadly and his life is threatened, should he not be able to rely upon old self-defence as we have always known it? Some commentators say that "stand your ground" has no relevance to the Zimmerman case anyway, if what he claims happened is true. stand your ground has NO relevance to zimmerman. he lost all claim to self defense when he got out of his car and followed martin. had he pulled up to martin when he first saw him, and politely inquired as to what he was doing, it is not likely that this incident would have occurred. instead, he chose to surreptitiously stalk martin. any reasonable person being so stalked would believe that the stalker presented a threat to their safety, and would have taken evasive action, which martin did. when zimmerman chose to get out of his car and continue chasing martin, martin had no choice but to defend himself. since zimmerman was the obvious aggressor, he had no claim to self defense, under ANY rational interpretation of the law. no, you don't get to use self defense when you are the aggressor simply because you are getting your ass kicked agreed
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 12:18:38 GMT
this is the texas law. there is NOTHING in it that would lead you to think that you could arbitrarily go to a neighbor's house and initiate a confrontation, then claim that you are standing your ground.
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.
§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or (2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property; (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 12:21:16 GMT
I think that case proves that there's something amiss with the laws. Whilst I believe the jury was right to convict, I have sympathy for Rodriguez who - I suspect! - genuinely thought he was defending himself and was naive about the law. The way he announces "I am standing my ground" tells us that he thought he had some right. Is the law dangerous? Did the SYG law just kill someone? the answer to each and every one of your questions is NO. the chap will not get life. five years will probably be much closer. he very well might have been under the delusion that he could initiate a confrontation, then claim stand your ground, but, tough shyt. ignorance of the law is no excuse. the law if obviously not dangerous, and no, a law cannot kill ANYONE.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 15, 2012 12:21:29 GMT
There are killings in order to defend life or limb and there are killings for revenge and punishment. If you get the drop on a burglar and they see you with your gun and put their hands in the air, then by pulling the trigger regardless you are not defending life or limb, you are punishing. The latter is not for a private citizen to decide to do. don't be daft. there is NO rational reason to ever give the trash the opportunity to raise their hands. there is NO rational reason to ever say a word to it, except perhaps, "bye bye azzhole". the second that it enters your house, you pull the trigger. that is what ALL intelligent people do There are plenty of rational reasons for not allowing private citizens to decide themselves on the spot guilt and punishment, why it is for the legal system to do this.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 15, 2012 12:38:46 GMT
I think the words we're struggling for are ''last'' and ''resort''.
Surely the Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine, or any self defence law that justifies a killing, has to include that your actions are a last resort - beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 15, 2012 12:42:38 GMT
I think that case proves that there's something amiss with the laws. Whilst I believe the jury was right to convict, I have sympathy for Rodriguez who - I suspect! - genuinely thought he was defending himself and was naive about the law. The way he announces "I am standing my ground" tells us that he thought he had some right. Is the law dangerous? Did the SYG law just kill someone? the answer to each and every one of your questions is NO. the chap will not get life. five years will probably be much closer. he very well might have been under the delusion that he could initiate a confrontation, then claim stand your ground, but, tough shyt. ignorance of the law is no excuse. the law if obviously not dangerous, and no, a law cannot kill ANYONE. If that's so, then there is something amiss with the way the law has been publicized, I guess. Thanks for putting that law up, jumbo. So, I can shoot someone while they are running away, and because I don't think I'll get my radio back unless I kill them.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 15, 2012 12:48:18 GMT
I think the words we're struggling for are ''last'' and ''resort''. Surely the Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine, or any self defence law that justifies a killing, has to include that your actions are a last resort - beyond a reasonable doubt. If the killing is to be justified under the self-defence principle then there has to be an immediate threat to life or limb for which there is no clear alternative except for violence. However IamJumbo appears to believe that killings outside of this context should also be allowed. Punishment and revenge killings etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 15, 2012 13:06:47 GMT
So, I can shoot someone while they are running away, and because I don't think I'll get my radio back unless I kill them. Wow. See this is why I keep saying America is a weird and scary place. That any government would allow such a thing is shocking. They're on their way to canceling all the laws, let the cops and judges go, and just hand everybody a gun.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 15:29:44 GMT
I think the words we're struggling for are ''last'' and ''resort''. Surely the Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine, or any self defence law that justifies a killing, has to include that your actions are a last resort - beyond a reasonable doubt. If the killing is to be justified under the self-defence principle then there has to be an immediate threat to life or limb for which there is no clear alternative except for violence. However IamJumbo appears to believe that killings outside of this context should also be allowed. Punishment and revenge killings etc. damn, you're dense. i just posted the law for you. where the hell do you see ANYTHING about an immediate threat to life or limb? what is so difficult to comprehend about the simple FACT that just breaking into someone's house proves your intent to harm them. whether or not you actually have that intent is relevant to absolutely NOTHING whatsoever. i do NOT have to actually feel that you are going to harm me in order to kill you if you choose to break into my house, run down the street with my tv, spray paint my fence at night, etc, etc etc it is totally on YOU to behave yourself if you want to stay alive
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 15:34:12 GMT
the answer to each and every one of your questions is NO. the chap will not get life. five years will probably be much closer. he very well might have been under the delusion that he could initiate a confrontation, then claim stand your ground, but, tough shyt. ignorance of the law is no excuse. the law if obviously not dangerous, and no, a law cannot kill ANYONE. If that's so, then there is something amiss with the way the law has been publicized, I guess. Thanks for putting that law up, jumbo. So, I can shoot someone while they are running away, and because I don't think I'll get my radio back unless I kill them. no. if they manage to get out of your house before you kill them, and are running away, you cannot kill them unless they have a piece of your property in their hand or pocket. if you kill them, and it turns out that they don't have any of your property, you could be charged with manslaughter. i truly do find it inconceivable that anyone cannot understand such simplicity. to come off with as insane a comment as synonym did after i put the law up there for all to see, is just crazy
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 15:36:37 GMT
So, I can shoot someone while they are running away, and because I don't think I'll get my radio back unless I kill them. Wow. See this is why I keep saying America is a weird and scary place. That any government would allow such a thing is shocking. They're on their way to canceling all the laws, let the cops and judges go, and just hand everybody a gun. hardly hon. there are stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun, and even more stringent requirement for a concealed carry permit thankfully, more and more states are becoming civilized enough to comprehend that a pencil on my desk is worth more than a thief's life
|
|