General Discussion

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)

48. +1

Reply to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:53 PM

Jul 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wow- a literal interpretation of the self defense law could lead to disastrous consequences [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 OP

Which is why we need gun control. Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #1

The emphasis is on the word "literal" DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #4

What form of gun control Jenoch Jul 2013 #7

Maybe not all guns Politicalboi Jul 2013 #31

Situations like this are Jenoch Jul 2013 #35

That is not "a literal interpretation of the self defense law". AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #2

Where did I err? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #6

First you say that there is a self-defense law in Florida which can be literally interpreted. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #10

I was correct DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #12

Aren't the words "reasonably believe" open ended with no real definition? And while we are at it jwirr Jul 2013 #22

Once double jeopardy attaches, a defendant cannot be tried again even if a jury does not follow the AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #26

don't be a violent person and punch someone in the face. n/t HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #3

Under the law I can punch someone in the face DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #15

if you don't start a fight then you wont be in that predicament... HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #17

The person starting the fight can invoke a claim of self defense. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #19

not if you don't punch or fight back... HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #21

So somebody can start punching me and I can't protect myself? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #23

call 911... or make sure you win the fight... HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #25

Not to beat a dead horse. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #30

exactly. HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #32

Not true Azathoth Jul 2013 #27

Not true. See below. X_Digger Jul 2013 #29

The best bar fight I ever saw in a bar and I was a bouncer at that time DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #36

Yes, that is the second part of the exception Azathoth Jul 2013 #57

I don't think the poster addressed it one way or another.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #58

That's what those who worship/tote/promote guns believe. Hoyt Jul 2013 #5

The law sucks and should be repealed. DearAbby Jul 2013 #8

I may be mistaken Duckwraps Jul 2013 #11

And since you don't need any evidence of injury whatsoever Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #9

Yes and the police do this more often than you would think. nt Duckwraps Jul 2013 #14

I will never set foot in the state. mick063 Jul 2013 #13

Well mick.. Duckwraps Jul 2013 #16

I get that DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #18

Yes and it probably has. Here is something Duckwraps Jul 2013 #20

It has nothing to do with this particular case DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #24

See rrneck's responce below. Most states probably have sorts of exemptions. nt Duckwraps Jul 2013 #38

Florida is nothing like the wild west. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #37

Yes, and if you Duckwraps Jul 2013 #40

I kind of got a laugh out of it. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #42

Well just Duckwraps Jul 2013 #46

Don't worry about my dismay mick063 Jul 2013 #43

You knowledge about Florida is extremely limited. NCTraveler Jul 2013 #44

Believe what you wish to believe mick063 Jul 2013 #45

I'm sure they will miss you. CokeMachine Jul 2013 #41

You might want to actually read the law.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #28

Beat me to it. Sometimes I forget to read the thread. nt rrneck Jul 2013 #34

I don't think I said "self defense" wouldn't apply in that situation. I didn't address it. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #39

supports the op's argument. initiate a confrontation & then say "but i was scared for my life" HiPointDem Jul 2013 #49

Saying 'but I was scared for my life' isn't what the law says, now is it? X_Digger Jul 2013 #50

actually it is. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #55

That's the 'reasonable man' standard. You might want to read up on it. X_Digger Jul 2013 #56

So as it relates to the Zimmerman case Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #51

Continuing to pound on an aggressor who's tried to disengage would qualify, yes. X_Digger Jul 2013 #52

And you would expect physical evidence to support this, correct? nt Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #53

First the state has to prove that the person charged is the aggressor, 'who swung first'.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #54

Let's say X starts the fight DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #61

That's "Y"'s problem, according to the law. X_Digger Jul 2013 #62

I get it. I turned the law on its head. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #64

Come up with a silly interpretation, then bemoan "disastrous consequences". I get it. X_Digger Jul 2013 #65

It happened to me. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #66

So the next time someone takes a poke at you, you're going to kill them? X_Digger Jul 2013 #68

Where did I say that? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #69

The burden would be on him to prove that you acted disproportionately Azathoth Jul 2013 #59

Well, first the prosecution would have to prove him the aggressor, then yes, as you say. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #60

Unless he withdrew and literally tried to run way how did the decedent know that was his intention? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #63

That's why it is an extremely difficult defense to assert Azathoth Jul 2013 #70

I think this is the relevant part of the statute... rrneck Jul 2013 #33

This is why things shouldn't be based on who threw the first blow. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #47

+1 HiPointDem Jul 2013 #48

You never start trouble as a cc'er ileus Jul 2013 #67