Duty to retreat v Stand your ground

[Quantum Windbag]

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 Florida’s “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 doesn’t 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 Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute.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 victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the 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

 

[Politico]

Noomi also thinks SYG has some relevance to the case too.

 

[Noomi]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

State laws differ.

In my state I do not have a duty to retreat in my home.

Some states waive duty to retreat if one is in a place he has a legal right to be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, @Quantum Windbag

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

How did Zimmerman have a chance to retreat after Martin had him on the ground?

I already posted in the other thread to show you that Australia has no duty to retreat as long as the person using the deadly force reasonably believed he was in danger. Why would anyone be raked over the coals for defending themselves from a rapist, even if the attack started because the woman slapped the guys face? You really aren't thinking things through, you should try dropping the emotions and consider exactly what it is you are advocating.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

State laws differ.

In my state I do not have a duty to retreat in my home.

Some states waive duty to retreat if one is in a place he has a legal right to be.

And, in the civilized world, that duty to retreat is uncommon. Progressives are always talking about how the US should be more like everyone else, I thought they should try for some intellectual consistency in their positions.

 

[syrenn]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

TM had plenty of time to retreat...from the creepy ass cracker who was watching him.

remember... zimmerman "lost him"

 

[Pop23]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

He did retreat...

How many times do we really need to go over this?

 

[Spoonman]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

did martin have opportunity to retreat rather than confront Zimmerman and attack him? All evidence suggests Martin was the first to escalate the encounter to a physical one.

 

[Noomi]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, @Quantum Windbag

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

How did Zimmerman have a chance to retreat after Martin had him on the ground?

I already posted in the other thread to show you that Australia has no duty to retreat as long as the person using the deadly force reasonably believed he was in danger. Why would anyone be raked over the coals for defending themselves from a rapist, even if the attack started because the woman slapped the guys face? You really aren't thinking things through, you should try dropping the emotions and consider exactly what it is you are advocating.

He should have retreated when he had the chance - and not followed the boy.

Over here, if you follow someone, whether you think they look suspicious or not is beside the point. You will be questioned as to why you didn't just back off and call triple 0.

 

[Noomi]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

did martin have opportunity to retreat rather than confront Zimmerman and attack him? All evidence suggests Martin was the first to escalate the encounter to a physical one.

Trayvon was walking home, he had no business to retreat, he wasn't following anyone. Was he supposed to choose a different route home to avoid Zimmerman?

 

[syrenn]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

did martin have opportunity to retreat rather than confront Zimmerman and attack him? All evidence suggests Martin was the first to escalate the encounter to a physical one.

Trayvon was walking home, he had no business to retreat, he wasn't following anyone. Was he supposed to choose a different route home to avoid Zimmerman?

and.... none of that matters.

there came a point when tm lost zimmerman.... zimmerman says he lost him..

END of the incident.

 

[dilloduck]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

He did retreat...

How many times do we really need to go over this?

a gazillion

 

[dilloduck]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, @Quantum Windbag

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

How did Zimmerman have a chance to retreat after Martin had him on the ground?

I already posted in the other thread to show you that Australia has no duty to retreat as long as the person using the deadly force reasonably believed he was in danger. Why would anyone be raked over the coals for defending themselves from a rapist, even if the attack started because the woman slapped the guys face? You really aren't thinking things through, you should try dropping the emotions and consider exactly what it is you are advocating.

He should have retreated when he had the chance - and not followed the boy.

Over here, if you follow someone, whether you think they look suspicious or not is beside the point. You will be questioned as to why you didn't just back off and call triple 0.

but we're not over there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, @Quantum Windbag

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

How did Zimmerman have a chance to retreat after Martin had him on the ground?

I already posted in the other thread to show you that Australia has no duty to retreat as long as the person using the deadly force reasonably believed he was in danger. Why would anyone be raked over the coals for defending themselves from a rapist, even if the attack started because the woman slapped the guys face? You really aren't thinking things through, you should try dropping the emotions and consider exactly what it is you are advocating.

He should have retreated when he had the chance - and not followed the boy.

Over here, if you follow someone, whether you think they look suspicious or not is beside the point. You will be questioned as to why you didn't just back off and call triple 0.

He had as much right to be on the street as anyone else, that is the whole point of the laws you keep calling stand your ground. If people are required to run away every time someone does anything wrong there won't be anyone but criminals on the streets.

If you think Zimmerman wasn't questioned you weren't paying attention the last few months.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

did martin have opportunity to retreat rather than confront Zimmerman and attack him? All evidence suggests Martin was the first to escalate the encounter to a physical one.

Trayvon was walking home, he had no business to retreat, he wasn't following anyone. Was he supposed to choose a different route home to avoid Zimmerman?

He wasn't cornered. He could have kept walking. Zimmerman broke no law. Martin did.

 

[sealybobo]

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 Florida’s “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 doesn’t 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 victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the 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

We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.

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.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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.

Take away = Don't put your hands on or exert criminal force on others and you will be fine.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Take away = Don't put your hands on or exert criminal force on others and you will be fine.

I believe that is the intent. The black guy wouldn’t have got shot if he knew how to use words.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Take away = Don't put your hands on or exert criminal force on others and you will be fine.

But, I hope they find the shooter guilty so that another take away is that you can’t shoot someone unless you need to shoot.

He was angry and embarrassed not afraid