Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhat's wrong with "duty to retreat"
We live in a country where there is a legal duty to abide by the lawful orders of a police officer. Imagine living in a country where there is a legal duty to abide by the unlawful orders of an armed robber, rapist, murderer or other violent felon.
That's what "duty to retreat" is, a duty to yield to thugs. If you are in a public place and a thug approaches you with a knife and orders you to leave, you are legally required to obey--just as you are when a police orders a crowd you are part of to disperse. In some "civilized" countries, you are legally obligated to obey that thug--if you safely can, in the opinion of a group of comfortable, safe jurors--if the order is given to you in your own house!
That's insane.
One of the most corrupt and barbaric features of popular gun control is its empowerment of criminals. Time and again, its proponents diminish the freedoms and rights of the law-abiding while empowering those who would prey upon them, their families and other innocents.
The current brouhaha about duty to retreat is a desperate attempt at deception. I do not argue that Florida's law is perfect, but duty to retreat is not really at issue. Florida law does not authorize chasing a person down, challenging him, starting a confrontation that gives him every reason to feel threatened, and then "standing your ground."
The real issue seems to be the enforcement of the law. Even perfect laws mean little if the enforcers are negligent, incompetent, corrupt or biased.
I do not want to live in a country where people are as legally obligated to yield to violent felons in any public place as they are to police officers. I REALLY don't want to live in a country where people are legally obligated to leave their houses at any hour of day or night in any state of dress or undress in order to accommodate thugs.
Europe and Canada can keep their legal systems.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)In the real world, where I live, every Democrat that I know owns a gun. Most of them own several.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How many of those Democrat gun owners strap on a handgun each day?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Strap on= stupid term...nobody straps on a gun
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Don't be so sensitive. Personally, I prefer to strap on a guitar.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Not at all sensitive, just realistic.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
msongs
(73,754 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he would be in jail SYG or not. If Sanford PD is as screwed up and racist as it seems, He would still be walking around under duty to retreat. They covered up a cop shooting a kid in the back. The problem is not the law, the problem is Sanford PD. That is not to say Florida's law is perfect, but the alternative can really suck if you are forced to defend yourself, pay legal fees to defend yourself from a murder rap, and hope the attacker's family doesn't decide make you their cash cow by making their two time convicted felon a "victim of........."
Look, the talking heads can drag out the Brady talking points, get half of the facts wrong, jerk their knees and clutch their pearls all they want. They are wrong on this one.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)you are legally required to obey a criminal. It only requires you to take an opening to get away if there is one before you use deadly force. If not, blast away at the perceived thug. It leaves you the right to defend yourself. With out a duty to retreat law Zimmerman now has a great case to get away with murder. Now if that kid was your kid and the police said the guy that murdered him claimed he felt threatened by him because a pack of skittles looked like a gun so we have to let him go, you'd agree with the law? Sure the cops fucked up, but only because of the SYG law they can claim there is nothing they can do.
Don't forget, in some peoples eye any teen wearing a hoodie is a thug.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)I said they used the law as an excuse to not investigate or let their buddy go. If no one had protested they may have got away with it and still may.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)Community oversight polices the police. SYG can be traced back to at least 1917 here in Washington state. Blaming SYG is without merit.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Picture this (an application of duty to retreat at a public park):
You are enjoying a picnic lunch with your soon-to-be fiancée, complete with a gourmet lunch and a hidden ring.
A thug walks out of the trees and walks towards you, knife in hand. "Scram bitches" he yells.
You are legally armed, but you can safely retreat. Therefore, you have a duty to scram, just like the thug ordered you to. His words bear the force of law, just like a police officer.
If that were my kid I'd be furious. At Zimmerman and the cops.
"Duty to retreat", according to your source, requires you to prove your innocence, often without witnesses, to safe, comfortable, second-guessing jurors. Think about that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't think DTR would apply to a guy with knife endangering your fiancee.
Now, if it's just some disturbed guy who will eventually walk away, I'm not sure you should sit there for a few hours rubbing your gun waiting for him to present a threat.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you need research it.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:21 PM - Edit history (2)
You seem hell-bent on missing the point.
The problem is the legal requirement of any person who is threatened to retreat whenever safely possible in the view of safe, comfortable jury members. Unfortunately, many of them, like you, favor criminals and are very suspicious of ordinary folks minding their own business.
Here's another example of someone being "insulted" "in front of his girl", an example that is the logical result of laws favored by many Canadians and Europeans:
You are enjoying a lunch break rendezvous with your spouse in your living room in front of the fireplace.
A thug kicks in the back door and comes towards you, knife in hand. "Scram bitches" he yells.
You are legally armed, but you can safely retreat. Therefore, you have a duty to scram, just like the thug ordered you to. His words bear the force of law, just like a police officer.
You can safely retreat, but not if you take time to dress. So you and your spouse get to stand out on the front porch (or run down the street), nude, in order to accommodate a felon.
Hopefully the neighbor's kid, when he stops laughing, will think to call the police for public nudity. But it's worth it to provide the felon a safe working environment, right?
"In front of his girl" my rear. The wrongness of the law would be the same if no woman was involved. It has to do with felons having more legal authority than the law abiding, with their being able to dismiss ordinary citizens from public places. In extremely insane legal systems, it has to do with decent folks being violently dismissed from their own houses.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)alternatives to shooting someone. And you are the one who used the "in front of his fiancee" stuff, like that makes a difference. God forbid you take advantage of alternatives and not pull your gun "to protect your woman."
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)The point is decent people involved in innocent, non-violent, even romantic activities having the order of a felon to leave bear the force of law.
They could be two gays. It could be two friends birdwatching. Being insulted "in front of your girl" isn't the point, even though it fits your caricature.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)a law prof explaining the problems with SYG laws in Florida.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)as a right-wing, tea party/NRA supporting site when pro-gun people post articles from it?
It's ok for you to use it to support your position but not ok for us to support ours. Gotcha.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)and respond to the law prof and what he said. He said it not the WaPo.
The law is vague and presents many problems for prosecutors.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)And I agree there are problems with the law, not so much in how it's written, but in how it's interpreted.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)with the 2nd Amendment. They agree with the law, but not how some interpret it. I guess you can understand that now.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Are your thoughts always so convenient to your beliefs?
Why would your fiancée have any less duty to retreat?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The mere fact that you go through all the crud to carry a gun makes it clear you already feel threatened.
In fact, I think guns will become much less popular if people find they can't use that gun any time they want. We've been headed in that direction for awhile. Now it's time to impose some restraints.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)How actively involved are you? Do you do more than just sit behind a keyboard and complain?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You've dang sure been doing your best to preserve all the gun laws that might be threatened if the public starts looking at what has passed in recent years and the damage it will do to society?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Can't answer a simple question?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)"The mere fact that you go through all the crud to carry a gun makes it clear you already feel threatened." This line pretty much invalidates anything you have to say on the subject, if only because it makes your ignorance of those who carry concealed so glaringly obvious.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Self-defense is a right; hate crimes and/or attacking another person who poses no threat is not.
It's quite simple, really. Yet many DU'ers seem hell-bent on blaming a law protecting self-defense for the problem of an apparently racist attack. They are wrong. Many of these same DU'ers are equally intent for blaming some tools (guns) for the crimes committed with them: equally misguided. And worst of all, many of these same DU'ers attack a fundamental American freedom (the 2nd Amendment) when they should be attacking racism. The recent tragic hate crimes in France sadly demonstrate that racist attacks involving guns also occur too often in places where personal firearm ownership is banned, and no 'Stand Your Ground' laws exist.
Finally, lying about someone being a threat when they are not is not protected anywhere in the US, even if you are an (idiot) self-appointed 'neighborhood watch captain.'
Excellent post, TPaine7. K&R.
-app
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Duty to retreat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law Criminal justice
In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.
"intention not to fight before eventually using force" is a safe guard against those looking for a fight, like racist looking for a chance to act out their racism.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in DTR, Martin, for example, is walking home from the store when Zimmerman attacks. Martin tries to retreat, but can not. Zimmerman lands up dead.
Martin, who meant no harm or malice and was minding his own business is now arrested for murder, jailed, and now has to find a lawyer. Then, he has to prove that he acted reasonably. How and with what witnesses? It comes down to the word of a hoodie wearing teenager vs a dead guy. Then, there is the civil suit because Zimmerman's family will distract everyone from his being a racist asshole by whining about the injustice of a life snuffed out by a kid in a hoodie.
The problem isn't the law, the problem is Sanford PD. The law is not stopping Sanford PD from putting his ass in jail. Sanford PD is using it to excuse their own stupidity and racism. The sad thing is, too many progressive pundits are buying it without even looking at it closer.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)however I see the law facilitated the PD. Easy to close a case and not bother if all you have to do is say "the guy felt threatened".
Like I said before, charge the person that sues if he loses for court and lawyers. Winning crazy lawsuits make the news but are no more common than CCW holders committing felonies. Hardly enough reason to take away the right to a lawsuit decided by a jury..
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the point is, Martin (or whoever, assume everyone is the same race) will have to prove his innocence in a criminal court even though all he was doing was walking home, minding his own business. Loser pays does not change that.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)Now you've lost me. I thought you were talking about the hassle of a civil case. Yes, if charged for a crime, doubtful if minding your own business, is decided in a criminal court and cost has nothing to do with who wins.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Self defense was an affirmative defense for murder. The state had to prove nothing, you have to prove that you took reasonable steps to retreat. You have to prove you had no choice. In short, you have to prove that you did not murder the guy.
safeinOhio
(37,651 posts)it's a good thing that you have to prove you didn't murder the guy. That is the whole problem with the Zimmerman shooting.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)innocent people going to jail, that is why the burden of proof should always be on the state.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...that's what you meant to say?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Kennah
(14,578 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)I have a huge problem with that.
If the burden of proof rests with the defense, I have to prove - probably without the benefit of any witnesses - that I acted in a way that satisfies the jury's subjective opinion of what's reasonable. If I fail at that monumental task, I'm a murderer. Where's the presumption of innocence? It doesn't apply in cases of claimed self-defense? Why not?
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)Things I do agree with
-The FL law is very poorly written- it requires(?) the police to determine guilt or innocence prior to making an arrest
-Stand your ground does not allow you to initiate a confrontation without showing valid cause
-Retreating from a confrontation is the best course of action if avoidance has failed.
I disagree that retreat should be a 'duty' as it may ignore factors making retreat an unattractive proposition. Exposing others to equal or greater risk for example. By requiring a 'duty' to retreat opens the possibility of abuse by an overly aggressive DA.
It reverses the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt:
"In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force. "
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Which is kind of redundant- the police have always had to prove probable cause to arrest, detain, search, or charge a person.
The part of that section of law that *isn't* redundant is civil immunity.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)I assume the posted text of the FL statutes is accurate. The vagueness is what the police are using to say they are prohibited from arresting him.
I do not see it that way as Zimmerman was in a defined safe place- his car. He willingly left that place to confront Martin. In my reasonable person eyes, that removed the SYG claim to avoid arrest.
He may still claim SD but should have to do that to a jury.
The civil immunity I completely agree with. (Even in the case of OJ) If you have been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a jury of your peers, why face another trial to see if you need to pay because "well maybe the last jury got it wrong?"
And to say that is not a burden on the defendant is ludicrous. Most people cannot really afford one trail let alone a second. Plus the time and stress of a civil defense I do not believe is fair to inflict on someone who has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)They could have just added the civil immunity part without having to re-state all the rest.
I think the perceived 'vagueness' is just a fig leaf at this point. They're looking for any excuse to cover their asses.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)level as needed for a criminal trial.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)law that Florida has, the three little kids could have pulled out their Uzis and blasted the terrorist. Or the Rabbi could have whipped out his Glock and done the same. I wonder why the 3 French Paratroopers this guy offed didn't nail him with their auto weapons - I hear the French paras are real pussies. Well, maybe France will learn the benefits of SYG now.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Just because you know how to quick-draw it doesn't mean you should.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but duty to retreat from the home is uniquely US as far as I can find. Maybe they do have SYG. That would be ironic isn't it?
Never mind the French, look at the Brits.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Never put the French and Brits in the same sentence, unless you're prepared to stand your ground.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)As we may know, this tragedy will be hijacked by supporters of an entirely different agenda. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Conversely, where another tragedy occurrs for the lack of legal clarity we will be remiss to explain why someone was precluded from defending themselves due to a perceived lack of legal protection.
jpak
(41,780 posts)Better be tried by 12 than carried by 6 - and all that RW douchebaggery.
Zimmerman is alive, free and armed today.
yup
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Zimmerman would be alive, free, and armed.
What would happen if Martin killed Zimmerman under the old law?
Martin would be arrested for murder
Martin would have to prove that he acted reasonably and tried to retreat until cornered
Martin would have to prove it was self defense
Martin would have huge legal bills
even if Martin proved self defense, and walked, Zimmerman's dad would be in the media's face claiming "his son was not a racist and is a victim of a hoodie wearing thug in waiting" and could be suing Martin's dad for "wrongful death", with a very low burden of proof.
That is assuming Martin was white or Sanford PD were not a bunch of stupid racists. How does the old law look now?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think it's a little disingenuous to switch this around, trying to use the victim to make your point. This was a clear case of premeditated murder and the killer, PD and the state of Florida are using the SYG law to justify it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)No, it is a perfect illustration of how it would work under the old law. How is it disingenuous?
I don't know about premeditated, second degree probably. PD is using the law to cover up their stupidity, not justify it. There is a difference.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Here is their justification, spelled out in a letter to the public. Sounds to me like it's open season on anyone wandering the streets in the "wrong neighborhood".
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman
provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by
physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from
making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when
any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she
is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and
in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of
force.—
(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.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of
force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using
force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was
unlawful.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)State, where it belongs, no more no less. If media accounts are correct, the police have more than enough evidence to arrest him.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Burden of proof has always been on the State, but the burden just got heavier.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the burden of proof was on you, not the state. In DTR, you already admitted shooting the guy, so the state has to prove nothing. You have to prove that you took reasonable steps to retreat and avoid.
This is the department that swept one of their officers shooting a kid in the back. Cop was white, kid was not. What do you think? In other words, if the facts were exactly the same and Martin was white, we would not be having this discussion.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)If for no other reason than to prove your point.