View Single Post
      07-22-2013, 09:49 PM   #131
Devious21
Captain
Devious21's Avatar
No_Country
29
Rep
711
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
Looking back at the posts, it looks like the thread somehow morphed at this point into a conversation about "stand your ground". Some clarity might be warranted: "Stand your ground" only means that one is not required to retreat or run to claim self-defense as a justification for a homicide crime. All of the requirements for self-defense still apply (see my older post above, but generally it's a reasonable belief that the degree of force you applied is necessary). Hence, "Stand your ground" isn't a license to play "tough guy" (i.e. if someone pushes me from my space, I can then shoot that person). It only means I'm not legally required to retreat (also [EDIT: *although] you may want to for survivability and other cost/benefit factors).
Also good to note that US isn't alone in this law.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ed_states.html

Quote:
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.
One of the comments from that article:
Quote:
The reason for Stand Your Ground isn't because you actually always SHOULD stand your ground.

The reason the law was passed was that so many people were being convicted of crimes because a prosecutor/judge/jury though that retreat was theoretically possible in cases where the victim, under the stress of being under mortal attack and actually BEING in the situation, unlike the prosecutor/judge/jury, didn't think retreat was an option.

There were too many cases of good people going to jail because someone who wasn't there at the time though they COULD have SOMEHOW avoided using lethal force to defend themselves.

One case was an armed guard at a student residence in Columbia, SC. My brother lived in the building, and the prosecutor decided to charge the guard who shot an assailant. The guard didn't think he could have retreated safely, the prosecutor did, and the guard went to jail. After SC passed it's law, he was set free.

So, in practice, it's really an indemnification to prevent zealous prosecutors from going after good citizens.
Another response that I agree with:
Quote:
P.S. It's not the legal right of others to who sit in comfort and safety to decide if you had other options, or if you picked the best one; their only right as a juror is to judge whether or not you were legally justified in those actions.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|