General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Martin Case Has Nothing To Do With Stand Your Ground Laws
and everything to do with no witnesses. With or without SYG laws on the books, without witnesses Zimmermen is free to make any justification for his actions he wishes. Charges would be difficult or impossible either way.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Gotten away with this, SYG just makes it easier. Now the shooter no longer has to invent a story that provides for no possibility of safe retreat (in a public space against an unarmed teen age boy) he merely has to claim he felt he was in danger. Why have we made it easier for sociopathic killers to commit murder and get away with it?
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Most stand your gun laws refer to a reasonable belief that one was in grave danger. Those reasons must be made apparent. There are no references to mere feelings of threat in any SYG law that I know of.
You are correct though that SYG laws make it a bit easier for police and prosecutors to use their discretion to not prosecute based on how someone came to have reasonable beliefs of danger.
My 2 cents.
Johnson20
(315 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so you do not have much in the way of actual data to validate your claim.
Johnson20
(315 posts)"traditional self defense laws," as they vary markedly from state to state. I can unarguably state that gun sales ccw permits and the passage of numerous castle doctrine and no duty to retrest laws have skyrocketed in thepast 15 yrs. Do yeah think that might have anything to do with the drop in crime rates?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But if you think they do please provide the statistical study from a reputable non-partisan source that establishes that SYG and CCW correlate to violent crime rate decreases, or increases for that matter.
Traditional self defense laws: by that I mean both CD and Obligation to retreat, both of which have existed for a long time, in some cases for centuries. SYG outside your home is what is new and, in my opinion idiotic.
Johnson20
(315 posts)there is a lot of work and studies, none of which would satify you as they tend to refute the meme. What do you attribite it to, a more gentel less violent society?
Unfortunitly I have to catch a plane now and won't be available for a few days. Going to the Mayo in Phoenix.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)However there are, as far as I know, no good studies (i.e. not agenda driven by either side) that support you. Feel free to provide a link whenever you can.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't think they have them here.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)which includes Castle Doctrine
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Also what is done in Marin County is not what is done in Kern County.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)CAL. PEN. CODE § 198.5 : California Code - Section 198.5
[div class='excerpt']198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)CA law does not have the civil liability waivers that other states have, but it certainly precludes any duty to retreat when in your home.
One of the subtleties that many of the those enthralled in their outrage at SYG do not realize is that Castle Doctrine is a subset of SYG and that just about every state has slightly different rules. The blanket poutrage is ridiculous.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Save face? That's a good one.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I am one of many who teaches CA firearms classes (among other things)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And I'm not even trying!!
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That's an old one.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)So, now you know.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Is that change in presumption. No duty to retreat from one's home.
Another link for you..
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf
[div class='excerpt']A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to
stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime> has passed. This is so even if safety could have
been achieved by retreating.
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the {attempted} killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of (murder/ or manslaughter/ attempted murder/ or attempted voluntary manslaughter).
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)For the 3rd time.
Proving once and for all time, 3 times is not a charm.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What exactly do you consider 'castle doctrine'?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Do you live in California?
Can you hunt someone down the street who is walking away from you?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)CA does have a mild form of Castle Doctrine
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And I'm not even trying.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)We're just supposed to take your word for it?
Do you even *know* what castle doctrine is?
Inquiring minds want to know. I'll pull up a chair, the podium is yours.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)of sources, this one is going to cling tight to their ignorance and remain in denial
Johonny
(20,879 posts)on the day of the crime. So it has something to do with how the machinery of the criminal or lack of criminal investigation. It's impossible to know how the criminal investigation would have turned out had they acted quicker and more fully without the law.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)One of the things any new law or regulation does is create a level of uncertainty for the people who have to enforce it. Whether it's NFL officials trying to figure out the new rules on helmet-to-helmet hits, or police trying to figure out the stand your ground rules, real world applications are a lot trickier than abstractions discussed in a committee hearing. And when the new law or rule is promulgated for an ulterior motive, as I think the stand your ground laws have been, it makes it all the worse. Police who are too inquisitive about citizen shootings run the risk of being labeled too hard on our law-abiding citizens by certain special interest groups, and who needs that headache on top of everything else?
Even though it was obvious in some quarters that the law would lead to some people acting out "Death Wish" fantasies, legislators purposely overlooked the danger in order to curry favor with groups that would fill their re-election coffers. And when the bodies hit the floor, everyone throws up their hands and says, "Whoa! Nobody could have seen that coming!"
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter was not reasonably in fear for his life. Under the preexisting law of self defense, the shooter had the burden of proving that s/he was reasonably in fear for his/her life to justify the shooting.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)No Duty to Retreat, including Castle Doctrine, laws vary from state to state. Those subtleties are important in the discussion.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)And thank you for confirming what I said. BTW, where do you practice law?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)expect to be called on them.
Those in deep poutrage over SYG need to understand its roots, that it includes Castle Doctrine, and that it varies, in some cases tremendously, from state to state.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)you didn't tell me where you practice law?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)The person would be arrested before and held at least for questioning. It has everything to do with ALEC model bills and a changing political system.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)You can't prosecute someone if you don't try to build a case. From what I've seen and heard on this the investigator wanted to charge him but was turned down. There's a whole lot of question regarding the conduct of the police and the prosecutor that night. How hard did they try to build a case? Were they even allowed to do a proper investigation? There are other ways to convict someone of a crime besides just eye witnesses.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)At this point Sanford PD may not have scrubbed the case...too many of the original claims *appear* to have been false.
We do know that the State Attorney is sitting on everything of factual value and even after 5+ days on the case, the new one is still going down the Grand Jury route.
It is infuriating
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Chris Matthews talked about this yesterday on his program, as did Ed.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He is basing his defense on SYG, so your claim is ridiculous
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and is hardly an objective source.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Is there a more authoritative source than that for if Zimmerman is going to use a SYG based defense?