|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation.
bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense.
That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books.
|
On March 25 2012 07:39 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:28 liberal wrote:On March 25 2012 07:21 Kickboxer wrote:
The law lets you kill somebody if you "feel" you are in danger of being seriously hurt, which is completely arbitrary.
Zimmerman, for example, was in no such danger objectively although he might have felt like it.
From what I understand, you're not obliged to run away even when you can. Also, your "assailant" does not need to have any kind of weapon. I put assailant in quotation marks because if you harass someone's girl and then spill beer in that person's face when he asks you to go away, which happened to me for example, you absolutely deserve to get punched in the face. That's not the law, you are misunderstanding it, which is understandable considering how so many other people are misrepresenting it. Cite a source that opposes this statement The SYG law allows for the use of deadly force if someone feels their life is in danger. They are allowed to stand their ground and defend themselves with deadly force. This is distinctly different than a standard self defense law where one has a duty to retreat before deadly force is warranted. Some states further handicap the self defense law to say that only equal force can be used to defend one's self after they are followed their duty to retreat. This is how the law was explained to me by my Criminal Justice Professor. "A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat" It is a misrepresentation to suggest a person can commit murder based on a "feeling." They must have a reasonable belief of a threat.
The point is "reasonable feeling" is extremely arbitrary. You can't prove or disprove a feeling. It has no place in the penal code. It only muddies the waters.
|
On March 25 2012 07:44 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:43 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
being latinamerican myself, ZIMMERMAN sounds very common , its pretty much like lopez in the common department...
Im not buying the guy is hispanic.
They are saying that to try to diffuse the implications of a white man shooting an african american... You aren't "buying" it? Huh? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy? His own family says he is hispanic.
If you saw a picture of the guy youd assume he is caucassian 100% of the time, Peruvians are mostly of colored skin. I think it might be a way for the media to portray hispanics in the light of a crime. The guy looks white, has a white name, but the media focuses on the fact he is hispanic...
|
On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books.
you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida.
|
On March 25 2012 07:48 TheBlueMeaner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:44 liberal wrote:On March 25 2012 07:43 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
being latinamerican myself, ZIMMERMAN sounds very common , its pretty much like lopez in the common department...
Im not buying the guy is hispanic.
They are saying that to try to diffuse the implications of a white man shooting an african american... You aren't "buying" it? Huh? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy? His own family says he is hispanic. If you saw a picture of the guy youd assume he is caucassian 100% of the time, Peruvians are mostly of colored skin. I think it might be a way for the media to portray hispanics in the light of a crime. The guy looks white, has a white name, but the media focuses on the fact he is hispanic...
You have it backwards, the media was focusing on the white part long before they reported that he was actually hispanic.
|
On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed.
Of course you can and should defend yourself. But you can fight back, or you can cover up or whatever. I just can't connect a one-on-one fight where no weapon is drawn to guaranteed manslaughter. In my city in the last ten years or so maybe I read about one person who died in an unarmed fight and kids get into fights every single night. Far more people die from falling or being hit by a train or drug overdose, all kinds of stupid reasons. In the grand scheme of things, a "fair" fistfight is about as lethal as driving your car.
When you shoot someone, on the other hand, chances are you will kill them. That's an incredible leap of escalation. I mean ok, if the person pulls a knife, grabs a pipe, or if there are several attackers, or you get assaulted it seems justified. But these two were simply fighting, like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. There can't have been a clear cut attacker or a clear cut defender, hitting first when your "fight or flight" response kicks in isn't the same as assaulting a person and Zimmerman was obviously harassing the kid.
|
On March 25 2012 07:48 TheBlueMeaner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:44 liberal wrote:On March 25 2012 07:43 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
being latinamerican myself, ZIMMERMAN sounds very common , its pretty much like lopez in the common department...
Im not buying the guy is hispanic.
They are saying that to try to diffuse the implications of a white man shooting an african american... You aren't "buying" it? Huh? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy? His own family says he is hispanic. If you saw a picture of the guy youd assume he is caucassian 100% of the time, Peruvians are mostly of colored skin. I think it might be a way for the media to portray hispanics in the light of a crime. The guy looks white, has a white name, but the media focuses on the fact he is hispanic...
Depends on the picture, if you go with the one of him in a orange suit looking like an inmate then yes he looks white. If you look at a few of the other pictures he looks Hispanic or could even pass a chubby Asian.
|
On March 25 2012 07:48 TheBlueMeaner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:44 liberal wrote:On March 25 2012 07:43 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
being latinamerican myself, ZIMMERMAN sounds very common , its pretty much like lopez in the common department...
Im not buying the guy is hispanic.
They are saying that to try to diffuse the implications of a white man shooting an african american... You aren't "buying" it? Huh? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy? His own family says he is hispanic. If you saw a picture of the guy youd assume he is caucassian 100% of the time, Peruvians are mostly of colored skin. I think it might be a way for the media to portray hispanics in the light of a crime. The guy looks white, has a white name, but the media focuses on the fact he is hispanic...
I've seen a picture of him, and he looks hispanic to me more than white. He is half hispanic, he looks hispanic (to me), he speaks spanish, his family says he is hispanic, and he qualifies for any hispanic benefit in the nation. How many more criteria would he need to meet?
|
On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:12 Kickboxer wrote:
Well, they used to have a law that justified burning witches, too. Laws can be fundamentally unjust and let's not forget this one was passed by one of the dumbest people alive, Jebediah "weapons industry" Bush himself.
In my mind, if Zimmerman gets hunted down and shot, it will be a far less drastic response to his slaying of a minor compared to ending an unarmed person's life because they are beating you up. I don't want it to happen, but it's absolutely closer to objective justice than his so-called "self defense". 168 unarmed people shot in self defense? Wow.
What I find disturbing is that apparently the same people who are defending Zimmerman are somehow appalled by the Panthers' action. Haven't you heard of the difference between legal and legitimate? The SYG law is nothing but legalized murder and should be immediately revoked or hell will break loose sooner or later. The situation where a civilian can stalk and shoot an unarmed teenager (I don't care if Martin was beating him up, what the fuck? People get into fights all the time) and somehow has done nothing illegal, as in less legal than smoking a joint at home, is stranger than fiction. governors dont pass laws. yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious. yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works. thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida.
Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so.
Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong....
And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with:
.+ Show Spoiler +776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
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.
if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler +(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
|
On March 25 2012 07:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:39 liberal wrote:On March 25 2012 07:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:28 liberal wrote:On March 25 2012 07:21 Kickboxer wrote:
The law lets you kill somebody if you "feel" you are in danger of being seriously hurt, which is completely arbitrary.
Zimmerman, for example, was in no such danger objectively although he might have felt like it.
From what I understand, you're not obliged to run away even when you can. Also, your "assailant" does not need to have any kind of weapon. I put assailant in quotation marks because if you harass someone's girl and then spill beer in that person's face when he asks you to go away, which happened to me for example, you absolutely deserve to get punched in the face. That's not the law, you are misunderstanding it, which is understandable considering how so many other people are misrepresenting it. Cite a source that opposes this statement The SYG law allows for the use of deadly force if someone feels their life is in danger. They are allowed to stand their ground and defend themselves with deadly force. This is distinctly different than a standard self defense law where one has a duty to retreat before deadly force is warranted. Some states further handicap the self defense law to say that only equal force can be used to defend one's self after they are followed their duty to retreat. This is how the law was explained to me by my Criminal Justice Professor. "A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat" It is a misrepresentation to suggest a person can commit murder based on a "feeling." They must have a reasonable belief of a threat. The point is "reasonable feeling" is extremely arbitrary. You can't prove or disprove a feeling. It has no place in the penal code. It only muddies the waters.
its not what the person felt, its what the metaphorical "reasonably prudent person" would have felt in the same situation. the jury becomes the metaphorical "reasonably prudent person" for purposes of trial.
|
On March 25 2012 07:51 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed. Of course you can and should defend yourself. But you can fight back, or you can cover up or whatever. I just can't connect a one-on-one fight where no weapon is drawn to guaranteed manslaughter. In my city in the last ten years or so maybe I read about one person who died in an unarmed fight and kids get into fights every single night. Far more people die from falling or being hit by a train or drug overdose, all kinds of stupid reasons. In the grand scheme of things, a "fair" fistfight is about as lethal as driving your car. When you shoot someone, on the other hand, chances are you will kill them. That's an incredible leap of escalation. I mean ok, if the person pulls a knife, grabs a pipe, or if there are several attackers, or you get assaulted it seems justified. But these two were simply fighting, like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. There can't have been a clear cut attacker or a clear cut defender, hitting first when your "fight or flight" response kicks in isn't the same as assaulting a person and Zimmerman was obviously harassing the kid.
A fair fist fight? WTF...in a fight before hand you both suddenly agree to be completely honourable and stop if one is hurt and do you really want to trust your life into some random person that wants to fight you? Street fights are not like you see in the movie where everyone forms a circle and two guys box it out then one falls down and it's over. Street fights are very quick and very violent and the odds of it staying 1 on 1 is so small, and the risk of someone pulling a knife or gun is real.
|
On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
governors dont pass laws.
yes, lets kill everyone accused of a crime. the judicial process is expensive and tedious.
yes, lets take the law into our own hands. when we dont agree with the laws, we make our own. thats how a perfect democracy works.
thanks for your contributions. =D The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of. They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened." That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice) The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned. I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law. they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong....
since we are throwing out credentials, i am a California bar accredited attorney and i say that you did not use the term due process correctly in the prior posts. i dont know what your professor said so i wont comment on that. but you cannot violate due process by not arresting someone, you can only violate it by arresting someone without probable cause. due process is owed to criminal defendants.
|
On March 25 2012 07:57 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:51 Kickboxer wrote:On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed. Of course you can and should defend yourself. But you can fight back, or you can cover up or whatever. I just can't connect a one-on-one fight where no weapon is drawn to guaranteed manslaughter. In my city in the last ten years or so maybe I read about one person who died in an unarmed fight and kids get into fights every single night. Far more people die from falling or being hit by a train or drug overdose, all kinds of stupid reasons. In the grand scheme of things, a "fair" fistfight is about as lethal as driving your car. When you shoot someone, on the other hand, chances are you will kill them. That's an incredible leap of escalation. I mean ok, if the person pulls a knife, grabs a pipe, or if there are several attackers, or you get assaulted it seems justified. But these two were simply fighting, like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. There can't have been a clear cut attacker or a clear cut defender, hitting first when your "fight or flight" response kicks in isn't the same as assaulting a person and Zimmerman was obviously harassing the kid. A fair fist fight? WTF...in a fight before hand you both suddenly agree to be completely honourable and stop if one is hurt and do you really want to trust your life into some random person that wants to fight you? Street fights are not like you see in the movie where everyone forms a circle and two guys box it out then one falls down and it's over. Street fights are very quick and very violent and the odds of it staying 1 on 1 is so small, and the risk of someone pulling a knife or gun is real.
Seriously, you start a fight on the street like that you better be willing to die, because the other guy might just be willing to kill you.
|
On March 25 2012 08:00 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:57 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 07:51 Kickboxer wrote:On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed. Of course you can and should defend yourself. But you can fight back, or you can cover up or whatever. I just can't connect a one-on-one fight where no weapon is drawn to guaranteed manslaughter. In my city in the last ten years or so maybe I read about one person who died in an unarmed fight and kids get into fights every single night. Far more people die from falling or being hit by a train or drug overdose, all kinds of stupid reasons. In the grand scheme of things, a "fair" fistfight is about as lethal as driving your car. When you shoot someone, on the other hand, chances are you will kill them. That's an incredible leap of escalation. I mean ok, if the person pulls a knife, grabs a pipe, or if there are several attackers, or you get assaulted it seems justified. But these two were simply fighting, like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. There can't have been a clear cut attacker or a clear cut defender, hitting first when your "fight or flight" response kicks in isn't the same as assaulting a person and Zimmerman was obviously harassing the kid. A fair fist fight? WTF...in a fight before hand you both suddenly agree to be completely honourable and stop if one is hurt and do you really want to trust your life into some random person that wants to fight you? Street fights are not like you see in the movie where everyone forms a circle and two guys box it out then one falls down and it's over. Street fights are very quick and very violent and the odds of it staying 1 on 1 is so small, and the risk of someone pulling a knife or gun is real. Seriously, you start a fight on the street like that you better be willing to die, because the other guy might just be willing to kill you.
Which is why street fighting is fucking stupid to begin with
|
On March 25 2012 08:01 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:00 Freddybear wrote:On March 25 2012 07:57 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 07:51 Kickboxer wrote:On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed. Of course you can and should defend yourself. But you can fight back, or you can cover up or whatever. I just can't connect a one-on-one fight where no weapon is drawn to guaranteed manslaughter. In my city in the last ten years or so maybe I read about one person who died in an unarmed fight and kids get into fights every single night. Far more people die from falling or being hit by a train or drug overdose, all kinds of stupid reasons. In the grand scheme of things, a "fair" fistfight is about as lethal as driving your car. When you shoot someone, on the other hand, chances are you will kill them. That's an incredible leap of escalation. I mean ok, if the person pulls a knife, grabs a pipe, or if there are several attackers, or you get assaulted it seems justified. But these two were simply fighting, like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. There can't have been a clear cut attacker or a clear cut defender, hitting first when your "fight or flight" response kicks in isn't the same as assaulting a person and Zimmerman was obviously harassing the kid. A fair fist fight? WTF...in a fight before hand you both suddenly agree to be completely honourable and stop if one is hurt and do you really want to trust your life into some random person that wants to fight you? Street fights are not like you see in the movie where everyone forms a circle and two guys box it out then one falls down and it's over. Street fights are very quick and very violent and the odds of it staying 1 on 1 is so small, and the risk of someone pulling a knife or gun is real. Seriously, you start a fight on the street like that you better be willing to die, because the other guy might just be willing to kill you. Exactly, and you better be ready to kill him cause you have no idea what he's willing to do, which is why street fighting is fucking stupid to begin with
but makes for interesting youtube videos.
|
Thank you daphreak for taking the time to clear up so much of the confusion in here, SYG law, due process, reasonable person, etc....
|
On March 25 2012 08:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 08:01 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 08:00 Freddybear wrote:On March 25 2012 07:57 NotSorry wrote:On March 25 2012 07:51 Kickboxer wrote:On March 25 2012 07:31 liberal wrote:
@kickboxer
I wouldn't want to live in a nation where someone who is getting beaten is forced to just take it or risk prosecution. Defending yourself is a basic human right in my opinion. I also have no problem at all with escalation of force in a moment of self defense. You can't predict an attackers actions, you don't know if they are gonna bruise you or kill you, there is adrenaline running through your system, neither party is thinking straight, and someone in that situation should not be punished for inaccurately assessing the risk or not responding in the "legally proportional" way. A victims right to self defense supersedes the attackers right to not be harmed. Of course you can and should defend yourself. But you can fight back, or you can cover up or whatever. I just can't connect a one-on-one fight where no weapon is drawn to guaranteed manslaughter. In my city in the last ten years or so maybe I read about one person who died in an unarmed fight and kids get into fights every single night. Far more people die from falling or being hit by a train or drug overdose, all kinds of stupid reasons. In the grand scheme of things, a "fair" fistfight is about as lethal as driving your car. When you shoot someone, on the other hand, chances are you will kill them. That's an incredible leap of escalation. I mean ok, if the person pulls a knife, grabs a pipe, or if there are several attackers, or you get assaulted it seems justified. But these two were simply fighting, like a couple of kids in the schoolyard. There can't have been a clear cut attacker or a clear cut defender, hitting first when your "fight or flight" response kicks in isn't the same as assaulting a person and Zimmerman was obviously harassing the kid. A fair fist fight? WTF...in a fight before hand you both suddenly agree to be completely honourable and stop if one is hurt and do you really want to trust your life into some random person that wants to fight you? Street fights are not like you see in the movie where everyone forms a circle and two guys box it out then one falls down and it's over. Street fights are very quick and very violent and the odds of it staying 1 on 1 is so small, and the risk of someone pulling a knife or gun is real. Seriously, you start a fight on the street like that you better be willing to die, because the other guy might just be willing to kill you. Exactly, and you better be ready to kill him cause you have no idea what he's willing to do, which is why street fighting is fucking stupid to begin with but makes for interesting youtube videos.
Just waiting for the "I'm a 6'4 265 ex-Marine, no one can fuck with me in a fight"
|
On March 25 2012 07:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:56 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:47 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:38 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 07:29 stokes17 wrote:On March 25 2012 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 25 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
The funny thing is the Sanford police department (and the DA) did exactly what you are making fun of.
They decided the judicial process was too expensive and didn't charge zimmerman even though he admitted to shooting Martin. They literally find a guy with a bloody nose and smoking gun standing over a dead boy half his size. He goes "i felt threatened it was self defense" The cops go "HOKAY!" and let him go. Let's let all murderers free as long as they "felt threatened."
That is a breach of protocol at the least and obstruction of justice at the most (combined with the apparent attempt to cover the incident up, leads me to lean towards obstruction of justice)
The Sanford Police department took the law into their own hands and judged Zimmerman to be innocent. They did not give Martin's family due process which they are constitutionally entitled to. Its no wonder the DA asked to be relived of the case and the Police Chief resigned.
I mean you use hyperbole in your example, I just have to point to what has fucking occurred in Florida over the past 7 years as a result of this absurd Stand your ground law.
they decided there wasnt enough evidence to charge him of a crime based on constitutional principles (i.e., probable cause). i disagree with that decision, but i dont know all the facts. you keep oversimplifying all the issues. sigh, another person using due process incorrectly. are you the person i corrected earlier in this thread? edit: it wasnt you. it was someone else. zimmerman is entitled to due process, not the family. see my previous post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=70#1384 Have you actually read the SYG law? It does actually say that deadly force is justified if you feel threatened. You are allowed to "stand your ground." That is the wording and intent of the law And there is no decision to arrest Zimmerman. If the Police have probable cause to believe you committed a crime you are arrested. Zimmerman was found near the dead body, bloody, with a gun. The police do not decide if a homicide is justified. To prove justifiable homicide you have to 1st admit to the crime, which Zimmerman did, and then you have to prove that your defense is sound. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate he acted in self defense. When I said due process was violated I meant that Zimmerman was not required to prove his defense in a court of law. Instead no charges were filed and he was allowed to go free. Again, A justifiable homicide is still a homicide and the accused has to be arrested if there is probable cause he committed the crime. It is up to a jury of his peers to determine if his defense is sound. Imo, trying to sweep this case under the rug by not charging Zimmerman is a breach of due process, and as an extension obstruction of justice. I think the fact that the Police chief resigned and the DA transferred the case support my assertion that due process was violated. Just because due process was violated in Zimmerman's favor doesn't mean it wasn't violated. i read the Florida jury instructions and posted them in this thread at least three times now. please provide me a cite to where the law says "deadly force is justified if you feel threatened." a legitimate cite (i.e., the Florida statute, the jury instructions, the Supreme Court), because that is what i have provided multiple times. you are still not using the term due process correctly. you can google it if you want to know what it means. i agree he should be arrested and a trial had. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Just because Zimmerman would have preferred there not to be a trial doesn't mean he and the general public are not entitled to one. The Sanford PD violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman after he admitted to killing Martin. I'm gonna go read the SYG law myself now, I've been working off of class notes up til now. EDIT: first line of wikipedia entry on the law -- A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. That's literally what I've been saying. if you are going to cite me wiki when i have been citing the actual law, i am not going to continue this conversation. bro you questioned my use of due process.....What do you what beside a dictionary definition? Which for the record I've been using correctly with the working assumption of the SYG law i had from class-- that it was an affirmative defense. That SYG line was taken from the Florida entry on the law. I just posted the actual wording of the law in an above post so i won't repost it. And while I had been misinformed(FL SYG Law actually grants immunity from prosecution, its not an affirmative defense). It certainly does not quell my fears that this law is abhorrent and needs to be stricken from the books. you have not been using due process correctly. and you are still oversimplifying the self defense law in Florida. Yes it is a correct usage, I was working under the understanding that SYG law in FL allows you justify a homicide charge. If that were the case, not arresting Zimmerman would have been a violation of due process. Since my professor had misinformed me, i was working under that assumption. My professor is PA bar accredited attorney and he literally said in class by his understanding of the SYG law the "police violated due process by not arresting Zimmerman." I'm only a crj minor so I won't even try to claim expertise on the matter, Like maybe he was speaking colloquially and maybe I don't fully understand what "granting all legal rights", but I don't think so. Since the FL SYG grants you immunity from arrest, there was no violation. But arresting someone who you have probable cause committed a crime falls under the umbrella of due process. I don't understand why you would think otherwise. You just keep saying I'm wrong.... since we are throwing out credentials, i am a California bar accredited attorney and i say that you did not use the term due process correctly in the prior posts. i dont know what your professor said so i wont comment on that. but you cannot violate due process by not arresting someone, you can only violate it by arresting someone without probable cause. due process is owed to criminal defendants.
So if as an officer watch a crime occur and don't arrest the guy they saw commit the crime. The officer has not violated due process?
I literally was given that example in class as violation of due process. idn, maybe the guy's a kook... I don't think he's practiced in a number of years.
EDIT: word usage aside, since you are an expert in the field can you explain how my interpretation of the SYG law in this post is incorrect. And if it is not, can you explain what use it serves being on the books ? + Show Spoiler +And to address your claim of oversimplification here is the exact lettering of the law that I take issue with:
.+ Show Spoiler +
if you use .013(3) to justify .012. You have basically given a person the ability to use deadly force with immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as granted here in .032(1) + Show Spoiler + simply for "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"
Was that specific enough for you now? Please explain to me what use this law has in the penal code. In practice it has resulted in 168 unarmed people being killed. And in theory it gives private citizens easier access to deadly force(with no oversight) than trained sworn in police officers with heavy oversight
|
The officer watching the crime would give him probable cause, right?
Sry I'm not a law student, I just an mma fighter that did forensics for year
|
On March 25 2012 08:03 liberal wrote:
Thank you daphreak for taking the time to clear up so much of the confusion in here, SYG law, due process, reasonable person, etc....
you're welcome. but not everyone welcomes my words.
On March 22 2012 10:18 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:11 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 10:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:04 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:57 RaiderRob wrote:On March 22 2012 09:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:49 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. I really don't get it (or more likely, you don't). It does automatically negate self defense. There's a fundamental differen't between police (on duty) and average citizens. You're comparing apples to oranges. They are not the same. The rules are not the same. There's no reason to compare them. im only basing this on studying California Criminal Law at law school, including the law on self-defense. i could be wrong since this a Florida case. what are you basing your knowledge on? If this is the law I can only say that the law in California is pretty fucked up. I can't imagine any situation where it's ok for any civilian to follow another civilian, deliberately seeking a confrontation while being armed with a gun vs a person without and than claiming self defense. where does it say he was "deliberately seeking a confrontation?" also, we know that he chased the kid, but what happened after he caught him will determine whether its self defense, not the fact that he is chasing after him with a loaded gun. so many assumptions. When you get out of your car when you're told not to and chase down somebody with a loaded handgun you are seeking confrontation. What other motive could he have for chasing down somebody that he just called the police about as being suspicious? he considers himself neighborhood watch. if someone suspicious was running through your neighborhood wouldnt you give pursuit? not saying he is the most intelligent person, but that may be his thinking. You are completely okay with a world where every nitwit can get a gun, follow unarmed kids and than call it selfdefense? ummm, no. where did i say that? are you okay with a world where people determine the innocence of a man based on news reports and youtube videos? where, if the police dont arrest and the jury dont convict, then they are going to riot? because im not. You're trying way to hard to hide your very mediocre intelligence behind a facade of fake rationality. User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
