rcart76
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,321
- Reaction score
- 649
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Nuts, Guns, Beer, and now people are dead? How could such a thing have happened...What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!
Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under
I'm not saying it but the guy who made the gun sure would.What does this have to do with gun control? Are you saying that shooting someone 11 times, yet failing to kill them, is poor gun control?
It will never pass the courts. You can't claim preemptive action and a defensive stand your ground at the time.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S.[5] (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.
It will never pass the courts. You can't claim preemptive action and a defensive stand your ground at the time.
You right it shouldn't pass the courts (At least I don't think it will). But that is not my concern. The problem is that sick people are more comfortable to shoot someone because of the presumption that they can hide behind the stand your ground law. The definition of feeling threaten is pretty broad in the law.
We haven't seen the worst of it yet just watch.
It requires a "reasonable" belief "that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm..."Sure you can, as this case's defense stragegy proves. The only question is if it will it actually work. SYG, as its basis, requires only that you believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm, not when that belief was established.
It requires a "reasonable" belief "that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm..."
So, the belief must not only be reasonable, but the injury/death must be imminent.
The word "imminent" establishes a time frame for what must be reasonably feared.
What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!
Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under
I suspect that would go toward the question of wether or not the fear was "reasonable".If I am told that if I get within reach of these three morons that I will be beaten severely, and then present myself, must that threat be repeated, or simply documented to have existed?
I suspect that would go toward the question of wether or not the fear was "reasonable".
What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!
Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under
That is exactly what the defense is claiming. Based on repeated threats they contend that constitutes an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Woodward. I would argue that SYG does not apply because Woodward did not stand his ground but actually initiated the attack. Had Woodward been approached by the three men, rather than did the persuing, then it would be a different situation entirely.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article...le-slaying-suspect-claims-he-stood-his-ground
Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!! There is far too much prejudice and paranoia out there for that. This law has been applied and has been successful in similar scenarios in the past yet unsuccessful in others where the threat appeared more imminent and immediate, ether the law as to be revised or get rid of it.
IIRC, the jury is who determines "reasonableness"I see, so one would have to bring up examples of these morons actually having made good on such a threat? What if you had been bullied, threatened and beaten before, just not by these particular individuals? What if you are presented with a situation, say that of a typical mugging, in which you have no idea of what the threat level is; in other words, you never met or heard of the perp before that very instant?
Nothing wrong with most SYG laws.
Florida's law is more extreme than most, giving much more latitude... but even under Florida's SYG I cannot see this defense being successful. Basically the guy is a looney and a dick and he's trying to cover his murderous actions with whatever tattered ragged cloak of law he can... but it isn't going to work.
In most states they simply remove the duty to retreat before using lethal force and that is well... lotta times retreat isn't feasible.
Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!! There is far too much prejudice and paranoia out there for that. This law has been applied and has been successful in similar scenarios in the past yet unsuccessful in others where the threat appeared more imminent and immediate, ether the law as to be revised or get rid of it.
Yes, my god how can a normal citizen decide his life is in danger? They should just stand there and die themselves? Right?
You right it shouldn't pass the courts (At least I don't think it will). But that is not my concern. The problem is that sick people are more comfortable to shoot someone because of the presumption that they can hide behind the stand your ground law. The definition of feeling threaten is pretty broad in the law.
We haven't seen the worst of it yet just watch.
Yes, they should. That is exactly what I said. Seriously, I don't engage here with people who twist my words into something completely different for their amusement or to create an opportunity to exercise their rage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?