The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,010
- 2,405
We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.I just did a little research because of something [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] said in another thread. It seems that not only is she completely wrong about how stand your ground laws work here, she is totally ignorant about the fact that Australia has the same basic understanding of the right to self defense as Florida.
That got me to thinking, how many other countries have stand your ground laws? It turns out that most of them do.
Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial discussed Floridas stand your ground law before reaching a not guilty verdict on Saturday, according to juror B37. The controversial law eliminates the obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if it would be safe to do so. Do other countries require their citizens to retreat before using deadly force?
Many do not. English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesnt understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victims life, but it permits an attack on his legal rightsthe right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the stand your ground law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.
Is stand your ground unique to the United States? - Slate Magazine
So, I want black guys to go get ccw’s and then go verbally piss white guys off till they push them. Then the black guy has the right to blow them away.
That seems to be all it takes for a white guy to shoot a black guy. He was assaulted and afraid. Doesn’t matter that he stopped after seeing the gun. He pushed me so I can now defend myself by taking his life.
I urge you to reserve judgement and let this thing play out. I live in Florida, I know Florida law ( passed the Florida Bar) and saw the video. I would be shocked if the shooter, Michael Drejka, is not arrested soon. Here's why:
In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.
The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.
There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.
CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.
We shall see.