There's been a similar incident in Flagler Beach, a town nearby where I used to live.
http://flaglerlive.com/35683/miller-mulhall-murder
http://flaglerlive.com/35712/mulhall-shooting-murder
http://flaglerlive.com/35859/paul-miller-911-call
There's been a similar incident in Flagler Beach, a town nearby where I used to live.
http://flaglerlive.com/35683/miller-mulhall-murder
http://flaglerlive.com/35712/mulhall-shooting-murder
http://flaglerlive.com/35859/paul-miller-911-call
I'm not sure that it's the law itself that are leading to these outcomes. People carrying weapons on and off their property is nothing new, likewise, the misuse, (either accidental or intentional) of firearms is also not new. I personally have no problems with laws that codifies legitimate self defense, but I would want it constructed in such a way where flagrant violations/provocations are not covered. This isn't a question in my mind of whether or not it is just to be able to defend yourself beyond the walls of your home, rather how best to design a law that will allow that without legalizing incidents like this.
the entire idea behind syg encourages brute force over rational thought, and as we can see in this case, further encourages use of deadly force to remove a possible conflicting story
there are already laws and guidelines that protect the use of self defense, syg laws are unneeded, how did anyone not see these cases coming?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Hope is the denial of reality
Being a law-n00b I can't help but wonder if this law basically means that both parties in a violentish conflict can go for the kill and then the winner can justifiably claim that it was in self defense, ie. the law only affords protection to the one who gets to live so if Trayvon had killed Zimmermann by running away at him then Trayvon would have gotten off the hook. Or something. Bizarre that if you remove the duty to run you end up somehow justifying the non-duty to run after.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Actually, you have a far higher chance of being murdered/raped if you stay and fight instead of running for it. Even when you take martial arts, you're told that if you're getting robbed, your first response should be to give the robber whatever they ask for, and if you're getting attacked, to run away. Only if your escape path is blocked should you try to fight.
Hope is the denial of reality
Er if the scene of the crime is still on earth then, through careful investigation and a detailed account of the event, my baby sisters can help decide if the escape path was blocked or not
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The courts, using the standard of a "reasonable person". It's common sense in most cases. If you have one or two guys in front of you and they want more than money, you make a run for it. If they're catching up, then take out your weapon. If they continue chasing you, shoot them. Shooting shouldn't be the first response unless the other party already has a weapon out and pointed at you.
Hope is the denial of reality
And more to the point, they've resulted in people being sent to jail for legitimate cases of self-defense, which is where the public support for SYG and castle doctrine and all that shit come from in the first place.
So, really, the reason this law exists is all the moron hippies who've previously tried (with some "success") to create and enforce unreasonable limitations on the use of physical force in self-defense.
Even with that in mind, on this specific case, it almost seems like the cops are deliberately sabotaging the case to try to score points against a law they don't like. Based on his 911 call, a retarded ape could make a chargeable case against the guy for 1st degree murder, so even a Florida police department should be able to as well, especially now that they've got the feds helping out.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
That's something I like. I grant I'm not thrilled about it being the decision of the DA's, whose judgement is warped by the need to get elected and who consequently are always running campaigns "against crime," but human elements moderating the application of law, which by its nature has little to no flexibility in the face of context, are an absolutely necessary part of the system, IMO. And the sooner they get involved in the process the better.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Cain brings up an important point, namely that through this law dozens of people are avoiding serious jail time (not to mention all the stuff leading up to the jail time). The social benefits must be enormous
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
AFAIK, the wording of the law doesn't include context in this matter, so if you chase down a thief and he fights back, you are clear to murder said thief; and if you chase down a thief and the thief fears for his life because of the beatdown you are delivering, he would be cleared as well.
Thats why these syg laws are so flawed, its winner take all.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm in Ghost's camp on this law. I don't disagree with the principle, but if this is consistently being used as an effective shield in cases like Zimmerman's, then the implementation is flawed. You shouldn't be allowed to start a conflict, and then shoot the guy because you think he might fight back.
Also, I'm still not fully convinced that the law is really to blame here. I know that's the popular scapegoat on the internet, but with all the allegations that the police department are suppressing evidence, with the department claiming there were no witnesses when there are recorded 9/11 calls of witnesses being close enough to the scene that you can hear what's happening in the background while they're giving a play-by-play, this looks more like a problem with the police department than anything else.
There are other cases (marginally) less outrageous than this that highlight the flaws in this law, like that skateboard one.
I don't really know what principle is represented by stand your ground laws that couldn't equally well be fulfilled by adequate self-defense laws. If the current laws are as flawed as Cain said - and he didn't provide any examples - then the answer is in fact to have better self-defense laws, not a law that apprantly gives you carte blanche to blast away at anyone who looks at you funny.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I'll be giving Florida a wide berth should I visit the US. Don't want to get shot on a whim.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The skateboard one isn't an example yet. Trying to use it as a defense doesn't count, it has to succeed before it does. The defense will always claim anything they can.
I don't think we're really in disagreement. SYG laws are supposed to simply be adequate self-defense laws. It's only supposed to allow self-defense in situations where it's necessary without being required to go through a checklist of actions that could get you killed. If the law winds up granting carte blanche to blast away at anyone who looks at you funny, that's an implementation problem. They're not supposed to do that, and the law needs to be fixed if it does.I don't really know what principle is represented by stand your ground laws that couldn't equally well be fulfilled by adequate self-defense laws. If the current laws are as flawed as Cain said - and he didn't provide any examples - then the answer is in fact to have better self-defense laws, not a law that apprantly gives you carte blanche to blast away at anyone who looks at you funny.
Except any stand your ground law lets you blast away the second you feel threatened, regardless of the options available to you.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not quite sure why you even need a SYG law in the first place. The "normal" self-defense laws pretty much cover all the reasonable bases.
And if you think that those self-defense laws require you to go through a "check list" then I'm not quite sure if you're thinking straight there, Wraith.
Or has the US sunk that far into anarchy and barbarism already that you cannot enforce the law through the usual means anymore? In that case, there's far more things wrong with your country than this SYG law - that's just a symptom.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?