State's Rights

Johnny Rocketfingers said:
Barring that fact that one was armed and one was not (in the sense that I am arguing it is irrelevant), what again do the age and/or size of the men matter? Is it your contention that a smaller man is physically incapable of doing harm to a larger man? Is it your contention Darla? Or are you using preconceived notions and stereotypes in an attempt to paint an incorrect image?
Click to expand...


A defense of self-defense is available only of self-defense was necessary and, absent an asinine law that says you can pop a cap in someone's ass if they touch you without permission, the use of deadly force in self-defense requires that you either fear for your life or that you fear that the person on whom you are applying deadly force is going to cause you imminent serious bodily harm (generally speaking, statutes vary in terminology). So, like, the physical characteristics of the person applying deadly force and the person who got shot are relevant considerations to whether the application of deadly force was justified under the circumstances.

I mean, I guess I could see an argument that there isn't much difference here in terms of physical characteristics such that in this particular circumstance it isn't relevant, though I disagree, but you seem to be smart enough to figure out on your own why physical characteristics are relevant as a general matter.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Well, it doesn't really matter all that much because of the law, but absent the law the use deadly force would not be reasonable in the face of less than lethal force and the idea that an armed 200 pound 28 year old man would fear for his life or imminent bodily harm when confronted by a 140 pound 17 year old armed with Arizona Iced Tea and some Skittles is, well, specious.
Click to expand...

Jumping away from this case specifically, the above is quite ridiculous.

What if the 200 pound man is 5'3" and the 140 pound person is 6'2"?

Are you suggesting 28 year old men would never have reason to fear someone younger?

Just a bit for you to consider... the 'ideal' height and weight for a Navy Seal is about 5'10" 175 pounds.

You have no friggin clue what a person knows or doesn't know with regard to martial arts etc... so to simply dismiss it based on weight (which by the way clothing can hide) or age which can be hard to tell (have you never seen a 30 year old look 'baby' faced? or a 17 year old man look like 25?) Again not referring to this case in particular but to use weight and age is a bad call.
 
Onceler said:
What's the difference? If there are no witnesses or 911 calls, it's your word against....whose?
Click to expand...

The difference is what force is allowed under the law. Or are you implying that the law doesn't matter? We have one liberal after another proclaiming that the law allows people to just go out and shoot people and claim self defense. That has been stated multiple times on this thread. Yet NONE of you are actually pointing to what part of the law it is that allows such actions. That is what we are asking you to do.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Just an FYI, Johnny. What you are linking to is not the present law of Florida.
Click to expand...

Then do link us up... why would you state the above and not provide a link to the current law???

Why would you especially not link us up to the part that says people can shoot people for touching them??? Surely you found that too... do share...
 
Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
 
I am certain Dung must have found a 2012 version that shows that people can be shot for touching you without permission... he should be along any minute with it...
 
This seems to me to be the portion that would describe why Martin's case would be that of murder...

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
Please link us to the section of the law that allows deadly force to be used if someone touches you.
Click to expand...


It's not in the real law, but was in the proposed law that Billy posted. That bill proposed a law that would allow a person to used deadly force if faced with the threat of imminent "unlawful force." The term "unlawful force" is not specifically defined, but as a matter of the common law, "unlawful force" generally means any force that is not consensual. Hence, the law would permit one to use deadly force if one was under the imminent threat of being touched without consent. That's what the proposed law actually says. It's nonsense on stilts.

Moreover, the major problem with this legislation is that it allows people like George Zimmerman to claim self-defense after murdering someone without having to establish a lot of the other elements required in the absence of the legislation and, instead of simply being an affirmative defense to a murder charge, a murderer can prevent being charged by raising the defense. Before these laws, if you shot and killed someone and claimed self-defense, you could still be charged and tried and your self-defense defense is something that you could raise at trial, but it wouldn't prevent you from being charged. Under this law, if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you cannot be charged unless there is probable cause to believe that you did not act in self-defense. So where there are two witnesses to a shooting and one is dead, it's going to be hard to find probable case to believe that a person did not act in self-defense when the person acting in "self-defense" is the only witness.

In addition, I don't give a shit about what this dumbass legislator says about what his law was supposed to do because the law that he wrote doesn't say what he thinks he wanted it to say. The "Stand Your Ground" legislation is not the same thing as the "Castle Doctrine," and it blows my mind that this moron would actually publish that fucking claptrap. The "Stand Your Ground" legislation has nothing to do with defending the home or your property.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
It's not in the real law, but was in the proposed law that Billy posted. That bill proposed a law that would allow a person to used deadly force if faced with the threat of imminent "unlawful force." The term "unlawful force" is not specifically defined, but as a matter of the common law, "unlawful force" generally means any force that is not consensual. Hence, the law would permit one to use deadly force if one was under the imminent threat of being touched without consent. That's what the proposed law actually says. It's nonsense on stilts.

Moreover, the major problem with this legislation is that it allows people like George Zimmerman to claim self-defense after murdering someone without having to establish a lot of the other elements required in the absence of the legislation and, instead of simply being an affirmative defense to a murder charge, a murderer can prevent being charged by raising the defense. Before these laws, if you shot and killed someone and claimed self-defense, you could still be charged and tried and your self-defense defense is something that you could raise at trial, but it wouldn't prevent you from being charged. Under this law, if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you cannot be charged unless there is probable cause to believe that you did not act in self-defense. So where there are two witnesses to a shooting and one is dead, it's going to be hard to find probable case to believe that a person did not act in self-defense when the person acting in "self-defense" is the only witness.

In addition, I don't give a shit about what this dumbass legislator says about what his law was supposed to do because the law that he wrote doesn't say what he thinks he wanted it to say. The "Stand Your Ground" legislation is not the same thing as the "Castle Doctrine," and it blows my mind that this moron would actually publish that fucking claptrap. The "Stand Your Ground" legislation has nothing to do with defending the home or your property.
Click to expand...

So in short... the CURRENT LAW doesn't allow people to shoot people for touching them without permission.

Thanks. That is exactly what we have been saying.

The only way it might allow a murder to walk is if there were no witnesses, phone records, videos etc... and guess what... regardless of this law, the same could be said of ANY murder. Because if it was just the two people (killer and victim), then how the hell would they know you are there to begin with? Do you think people would kill someone and just walk into a police department and say 'hey, me and this other guy were all alone and he attacked me and I had to kill him to protect myself'???

My guess is, only a person who actually WAS defending themselves would do so. But that is just a guess.
 
Superfreak said:
So in short... the CURRENT LAW doesn't allow people to shoot people for touching them without permission.

Thanks. That is exactly what we have been saying.
Click to expand...

Johnny said he posted the law. In fact, he said it thrice or more. I assumed, based on his insistence, that what he posted was the law. My apologies for relying on Johnny's usual competence.


Superfreak said:
The only way it might allow a murder to walk is if there were no witnesses, phone records, videos etc... and guess what... regardless of this law, the same could be said of ANY murder. Because if it was just the two people (killer and victim), then how the hell would they know you are there to begin with? Do you think people would kill someone and just walk into a police department and say 'hey, me and this other guy were all alone and he attacked me and I had to kill him to protect myself'???

My guess is, only a person who actually WAS defending themselves would do so. But that is just a guess.
Click to expand...


Except that in this case a murderer walked. And the rest of that paragraph is fucking stupid. If you want to talk about the law then we can talk about the law. It has major flaws that this case has exposed. Now, maybe it wasn't the intent that this law has glaring loopholes but I doubt it. My guess is that the folks at the NRA crafted it that was in full knowledge of the glaring loopholes and state legislators, all too eager to be in the good graces of the NRA, just went along with it.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
I usually take a column a politician wrote with a big grain of salt and will do so here. For those of you who understand this law is this sound accurate? This article is by the Rep in Florida who wrote the Stand Your Ground law and he says Zimmerman should not be covered under it.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/
Click to expand...


No, it's total horseshit. The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are two totally different things. This guy is either a fucking moron or a fucking liar.

By the way, this little bit of rhetoric is tremendously dishonest:

Additionally, the American Legislative Exchange Council used the Florida version of the castle doctrine as model legislation for other states.
Click to expand...

He wants you to believe that this law is totally uncontroversial because a group with an innocuous sounding name that must totally be a non-partisan outfit that created model legislation for other states while not informing the reader that the group is actually a right-wing organization that tries to get right-wing legislation passed in state legislatures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top