So, Vice News (what the hell is that - I do not know but it was linked from Huffington Post) decided it was time once more to open the vault of errors and inept reporting on the Martin/Zimmerman affair.
"Under Florida's broad self-defense statute — commonly known as the "Stand Your Ground law" — the killing was perfectly legal. Zimmerman was eventually arrested and charged with murder, but a jury acquitted him of all charges in July 2013."
1. As has been said many times - stand your ground had nothing to do with this case; Zimmerman was pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him. No escape or retreat was available. This was a clear case of justifiable self-defense and Zimmerman would have been acquitted in any state.
"Essentially, Stand Your Ground laws say that people are not required to retreat from conflict, even when they are safely able to do so. In many states, the rule only applies to a person's car or house — an extension of the so-called "Castle Doctrine," which allows citizens to protect their private property with deadly force. But in Florida — where a particularly extreme version was signed into law by then Governor Jeb Bush in 2005 — that concept also extends to public spaces."
2. Let's skip the essential paraphrase and just put down what the law says - it is no longer than your misrepresentation. Herein:
776.012 (2). A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
It does not say "conflict" and it is clear you are using this ambiguous word to suggest that it allows a person to use deadly force to resolve even minor disagreements. It uses the words "imminent death or great bodily harm" for a reason. The reason is that those define the legal requirements for lawful use of lethal self-defense. The implication that a shouting match from 10 feet away would qualify is ludicrous and intended only to inflame. What this law does do is make it clear that a person who is in such danger need not stop to calculate whether they can safely retreat.
"Even in public areas like parking lots and playgrounds, where there are a lot of other people around and you have the ability to safely retreat instead of engaging in violence, you are given a free pass to commit a lethal act," Milikowsky said.
3. Where does this "free pass" idea come from. How do you know when you have the ability to safely retreat? How does this relate to or reflect the facts of the Martin case that you began the discussion with? You have created a contrived hypothetical and suggest it applies to all possibilities. But your example lacks specifics. Suppose, as with Martin/Zimmerman, Zimmerman was on his back with Martin pummeling him to death in that playground?
AFTER THE OBLIGATORY "BLACK LIVES MATTER" DISCUSSION THAT IS OFF-TASK.
"In July 2010, Alexander fired a single shot during a dispute with her estranged husband. No one was injured or killed. Alexander always maintained she had fired a "warning shot" after her husband had attacked and threatened to kill her. In other words, she claimed that she had "stood her ground."
4. What is left out of this description is that Alexander was threatened by her estranged husband. She left (retreated, if you will), went to retrieve her firearm, then returned and fired the warning shot. She had, as these authors have been telling us we all should, "retreated" successfully and avoided a violent encounter. The problem is she then returned and initiated a new confrontation as the assailant. This is exactly how this law should work; it protects those who defend themselves without retreating, but does not shield those who subsequently initiate conflict and become assailants. It is likely this abused women should have been treated better by the courts, but she did not deserve immunity under stand your ground.
"Certainly there is an uneven application of this law, and arguably the application of a lot of laws," Milikowsky said. "But because Stand Your Ground laws are so subjective, they remove the core tenets of self-defense law, and that has left more room for confusion about when and where self-defense principles apply."
5. As noted above, this was a precise and accurate application of this law. It is clear that these advocates are only arguing this because they want to repeal the law. If not, they would see that a SYG defense of Alexander would be their very own nightmare scenario; a person who retreated and returned to commit assault.
6. It does not remove the tenets of self-defense law - all of the required conditions still apply. When Alexander left to retrieve her firearm, she was no longer under imminent threat of death. Please, this is not that complicated if you were just motivated and able to think beyond blind support of your own agenda.
Please people - don't let your ideology cloud your intellect. Don't make up shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment