|
Eric Holder
Eric Holder is questioning why we need "stand your ground" statutes.
You know what? I agree with him. We don't need them. Castle law (which covers what happens in your home) does not have a requirement to retreat in most states. Stand your ground is just an extension of Castle laws, eliminating the requirement to retreat when outside of your home. It also has immunity to civil action (if found not guilty) but that could and should be applied to Castle law if it isn't already. The right to use deadly force in self defense is justified in every state of the country. It needs to meet certain criteria, most importantly being that there is no retreat possible and you are convinced you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Self defense laws have been on the books for years. I realize that the Zimmerman trial was not based on stand your ground statues, but it had many of the elements of one including the same language used in the judge's jury instructions. The juror who is currently giving interviews is the wife of a lawyer. Some of her statements cause me to believe that there was some confusion in jury discussions about stand your ground and self defense trials. Having this "Stand your Ground" statute makes it way too easy for people to over-react, kill and then not have to justify their actions. It fosters a cavalier attitude about taking someone's life. It's also one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything until political pressure resulted in his arrest and charge 45 days later. Would Zimmerman's trial outcome have been different if "Stand your Ground" statues didn't exist? Probably not. He was found not guilty based on self defense statutes. But I think the Stand your Ground statues had an affect on the jury. I imagine there are many who will disagree, but that's how I feel. In the state I live in we have a Castle law but no "Stand your Ground outside of your home". That's ok with me. I still carry occasionally and if I were ever in a situation that required deadly force, I'd make damn well sure I felt it was justified. The rest would be up to the courts. |
Eric Holder
On 7/16/13 7:24 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Eric Holder is questioning why we need "stand your ground" statutes. You know what? I agree with him. We don't need them. Castle law (which covers what happens in your home) does not have a requirement to retreat in most states. Stand your ground is just an extension of Castle laws, eliminating the requirement to retreat when outside of your home. It also has immunity to civil action (if found not guilty) but that could and should be applied to Castle law if it isn't already. The right to use deadly force in self defense is justified in every state of the country. It needs to meet certain criteria, most importantly being that there is no retreat possible and you are convinced you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Self defense laws have been on the books for years. I realize that the Zimmerman trial was not based on stand your ground statues, but it had many of the elements of one including the same language used in the judge's jury instructions. The juror who is currently giving interviews is the wife of a lawyer. Some of her statements cause me to believe that there was some confusion in jury discussions about stand your ground and self defense trials. Having this "Stand your Ground" statute makes it way too easy for people to over-react, kill and then not have to justify their actions. It fosters a cavalier attitude about taking someone's life. It's also one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything until political pressure resulted in his arrest and charge 45 days later. Would Zimmerman's trial outcome have been different if "Stand your Ground" statues didn't exist? Probably not. He was found not guilty based on self defense statutes. But I think the Stand your Ground statues had an affect on the jury. I imagine there are many who will disagree, but that's how I feel. In the state I live in we have a Castle law but no "Stand your Ground outside of your home". That's ok with me. I still carry occasionally and if I were ever in a situation that required deadly force, I'd make damn well sure I felt it was justified. The rest would be up to the courts. I've stated many times I think you should be entitled to use whatever force you find necessary to defend your life and the lives of your family while you are inside your house. I wouldn't hesitate for a millisecond to shoot an intruder who broke or forced his way in here. Stand your ground outside the home ought to be repealed for the reasons you state. Self defense is altogether different, and usually requires your assailant to be in the process of using deadly force himself. A few slaps or punches are not usually enough to justify deadly force. Of course, the situation is different if you are old or infirm and assailed with fists by a much younger opponent. |
Eric Holder
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/16/13 7:24 PM, Eisboch wrote: Eric Holder is questioning why we need "stand your ground" statutes. You know what? I agree with him. Stand your ground outside the home ought to be repealed for the reasons you state. Self defense is altogether different, and usually requires your assailant to be in the process of using deadly force himself. A few slaps or punches are not usually enough to justify deadly force. Of course, the situation is different if you are old or infirm and assailed with fists by a much younger opponent. ------------------------------ Many states (maybe all?) differentiate between assault and assault on a person 60 years of age or older or on a disabled person. In MA it's an automatic felony charge with longer prison terms and fines if found guilty. |
Eric Holder
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:55:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
A few slaps or punches are not usually enough to justify deadly force. Of course, the situation is different if you are old or infirm and assailed with fists by a much younger opponent. === And therein lies the issue that "stand your ground" addresses. Without SOG the burden of proof is on you if you're assaulted and respond with deadly force. You will probably face lengthy and costly court proceedings, and even if you win in court, may become liable in civil proceedings. All that because some hoodlum assaulted you, a family member, or tried to commit a felony in your presence. If someone attacks, or threatens to attack, a family member in your presence, you can not normally claim self defense if you shoot them. SOG fixes that. |
Eric Holder
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:55:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: A few slaps or punches are not usually enough to justify deadly force. Of course, the situation is different if you are old or infirm and assailed with fists by a much younger opponent. === And therein lies the issue that "stand your ground" addresses. Without SOG the burden of proof is on you if you're assaulted and respond with deadly force. You will probably face lengthy and costly court proceedings, and even if you win in court, may become liable in civil proceedings. All that because some hoodlum assaulted you, a family member, or tried to commit a felony in your presence. If someone attacks, or threatens to attack, a family member in your presence, you can not normally claim self defense if you shoot them. SOG fixes that. --------------------------------- Good points. Maybe the whole concept of self defense and the laws that governs it should be scrapped and replaced with laws that make more sense. For example, if found "not guilty" by virtue of justifiable homicide, immunity to civil suits automatically apply. Legal costs should be borne by the prosecution (state) if found not guilty. (that statute already exists in some circumstances). Also, an individual's self defense protection should include the protection of others in the immediate vicinity of the altercation or crime in which you had to use deadly force, i.e. business, bank lobby, etc. Again, these statues already exist in some circumstances. I am sure lawyers can come up with wording that covers common sense situations. Or maybe not. |
Eric Holder
|
Eric Holder
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 7:24:45 PM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:
Why don't you go shoot yourself, asshole?? |
Eric Holder
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:24:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Eric Holder is questioning why we need "stand your ground" statutes. You know what? I agree with him. We don't need them. Castle law (which covers what happens in your home) does not have a requirement to retreat in most states. Stand your ground is just an extension of Castle laws, eliminating the requirement to retreat when outside of your home. It also has immunity to civil action (if found not guilty) but that could and should be applied to Castle law if it isn't already. The right to use deadly force in self defense is justified in every state of the country. It needs to meet certain criteria, most importantly being that there is no retreat possible and you are convinced you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Self defense laws have been on the books for years. I realize that the Zimmerman trial was not based on stand your ground statues, but it had many of the elements of one including the same language used in the judge's jury instructions. The juror who is currently giving interviews is the wife of a lawyer. Some of her statements cause me to believe that there was some confusion in jury discussions about stand your ground and self defense trials. Having this "Stand your Ground" statute makes it way too easy for people to over-react, kill and then not have to justify their actions. It fosters a cavalier attitude about taking someone's life. It's also one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything until political pressure resulted in his arrest and charge 45 days later. Would Zimmerman's trial outcome have been different if "Stand your Ground" statues didn't exist? Probably not. He was found not guilty based on self defense statutes. But I think the Stand your Ground statues had an affect on the jury. I imagine there are many who will disagree, but that's how I feel. In the state I live in we have a Castle law but no "Stand your Ground outside of your home". That's ok with me. I still carry occasionally and if I were ever in a situation that required deadly force, I'd make damn well sure I felt it was justified. The rest would be up to the courts. Well, that will make Eric and Harry quite happy, I'm sure. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Eric Holder
|
Eric Holder
On 7/17/13 1:18 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:24:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Eric Holder is questioning why we need "stand your ground" statutes. You know what? I agree with him. We don't need them. Castle law (which covers what happens in your home) does not have a requirement to retreat in most states. Stand your ground is just an extension of Castle laws, eliminating the requirement to retreat when outside of your home. It also has immunity to civil action (if found not guilty) but that could and should be applied to Castle law if it isn't already. The right to use deadly force in self defense is justified in every state of the country. It needs to meet certain criteria, most importantly being that there is no retreat possible and you are convinced you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Self defense laws have been on the books for years. I realize that the Zimmerman trial was not based on stand your ground statues, but it had many of the elements of one including the same language used in the judge's jury instructions. The juror who is currently giving interviews is the wife of a lawyer. Some of her statements cause me to believe that there was some confusion in jury discussions about stand your ground and self defense trials. Having this "Stand your Ground" statute makes it way too easy for people to over-react, kill and then not have to justify their actions. It fosters a cavalier attitude about taking someone's life. It's also one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything until political pressure resulted in his arrest and charge 45 days later. Would Zimmerman's trial outcome have been different if "Stand your Ground" statues didn't exist? Probably not. He was found not guilty based on self defense statutes. But I think the Stand your Ground statues had an affect on the jury. I imagine there are many who will disagree, but that's how I feel. In the state I live in we have a Castle law but no "Stand your Ground outside of your home". That's ok with me. I still carry occasionally and if I were ever in a situation that required deadly force, I'd make damn well sure I felt it was justified. The rest would be up to the courts. Well, that will make Eric and Harry quite happy, I'm sure. John (Gun Nut) H. The idea of a racist asshole like you running around with firearms should make anyone queasy. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com