Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

You can shoot em in the back!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:21 AM
Original message
You can shoot em in the back!
The Miami Herald
Posted on Wed, Aug. 19, 2009
Fla. court OKs force against retreating attackers
By BILL KACZOR
Associated Press Writer

Florida's "stand-your-ground" law allows the use of deadly force for self-protection even if an attacker or intruder is in retreat, an appellate court said Wednesday.
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal issued that explanation for last month releasing Jimmy Hair from jail, where he had spent two years awaiting trial on a first-degree murder charge………….
National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer said Wednesday's ruling tracked the intent of the 2005 law her organization supported. She said just because someone's in retreat doesn't mean that person won't turn around and attack again. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/1193012.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hey, I'm the most ardent gun-grabber around, but . . .
It ain't justice if you're in jail for *two years* awaiting trial. Without pretending to be a constitutional scholar, doesn't that kinda flout the "speedy trial" provision? (As in, the heck with the Second Amendment, how about the Sixth?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Nice to see someone not blinded but inanimate object hatred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. I think the journalist did some bad reporting.
My guess is he had a trial and was convicted it took 2 years for an appeal.

The court making the decision was the court of appeal which is not a trial court so I don't see why they would be ruling unless he was already convicted.

Poor reporting for the win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. i made this point in another thread
at least in my state, and under the federal deadly force standards for law enforcement, it is NOT illegal to shoot somebody in the back.

it DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE STATE.

nobody has yet been able to cite any law (in WA) or at the federal level that states otherwise. or any caselaw that states it is illegal.

it's really that simple.

it depends on the fact and circumstances.

as somebody who teaches firearms and deadly force law to police recruits, i HAVE to know the law in this area very intricately.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. It SOUNDS cut and dried.
But it rarely is.

One of the few legal uses of a fully automatic weapon for self-defense in the US was presented as 'shooting the attacker in the back' because as the string of shots was let off, the attacker's body turned, and a couple rounds entered the side/flank.


Two years? Seriously? Who delayed, the prosecution or the defense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. At physical contact range, apparently
From the article:
Hair, who had a concealed weapons permit, claimed the gun went off accidentally when he tried to hit Harper with it.


Leaving aside the fact that there's no such thing as an "accidental" discharge, only negligent discharges, it strikes me that if Harper was still within striking distance of Hair, there would have been no way to reasonably conclude that Harper was in retreat at the time the shot was fired. If I'm reading this correctly, the late Mr. Harper was within a few feet of Hair, and thus in a position at which he could at any time have turned around and resumed the attack. It's not like he was halfway down the block and headed in the general direction of "away."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. The standard is imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony,
not which direction the attacker is facing at a given instant.

FWIW, the Florida presumption of justifiability applies only to defense of your home or against a carjacker; if this is ruled justifiable, it will be because the attacker DID, in fact, present an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or forcible felony when his intended victim initiated the shot.

Having said that, the would-be victim trying to claim "accidental discharge" raises questions, either of the facts of the case or of the competence of his attorney, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-21-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
7. First off, your gun is not a club.
Looks good in the movies and all, but don't use it to hit people unless it's truly the last option. The impact is fairly likely to cause problems with your gun if you have to fire it later on.

2nd, a person squriming and wresling in the back seat of car means that any part of the body may be facing the gun at any time, so being shot in the back means nothing in terms of proving the person was running away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. This interview with Marion Hammer about Florida’s “Castle Doctrine” Law...
is interesting and provides information for both sides of this debate.

GIACHINO: ....

If you would, please tell us more about the “Stand Your Ground” law. I believe the more accurate description is the “castle doctrine” law

HAMMER: The castle doctrine law was signed into law on April 26th of this year. It did not take effect until October 1st because jury instructions had to be re-written. The jury system and the prosecutors in this state had started changing the law and jury instructions to simply give the edge to criminals. So because there was a delay in the legislation taking effect, the Brady Campaign, who had been unsuccessful in defeating the campaign, had decided to run a campaign and get a lot of publicity and in essence terrorize our tourists by attempting to make them think that if they came to Florida they could be shot. That is absolute nonsense.

****snip***

So that basically is what the law does. When you are outside the home you can only meet force with force and then deadly force only if you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. In your home, they break in, you can use whatever force you choose.

****snip***

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. Duplicate post...delete.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 09:55 PM by spin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC