Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

anomiep

(153 posts)
28. And as a real life example
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:12 PM
Jul 2013

When I was 14, on New Year's Eve I was sitting on a very short wall that had a sidewalk in front of it, and a small hill, with sidewalk on the bottom of it, to the back of it. (the 'wall' was maybe high enough to make a good chair for a 14 year old "taller than most but not the tallest" kid, by the time I was 18 I was 6'2&quot . A friend of mine was sitting next to me and we were just talking about whatever 14 year old kids talk about.

There was another kid who lived in the same neighborhood, slightly younger than I was, who was basically a bully. That kid came at a full tilt run from the front (where the sidewalk is) and tackled me off the wall (toward the back, where the small hill was - the hill was maybe five or six feet higher then the sidewalk at the bottom).

My only thought when he tackled me was "land on top" ... and I did, when we hit the bottom of the hill I was on top, and I had somehow gotten him in a headlock as we rolled down the hill, and I am pretty sure he smacked his head on the sidewalk when we hit it, although I didn't intentionally try to make that happen. So after his initial provocation, and my defense, he couldn't really do anything to me.

Right there, in that instant of time where we hit the sidewalk at the bottom of the hill, it should be pretty clear I was not the aggressor and the force I used (putting him in a headlock, and landing on top) was provoked.

But in that same instant, I had a choice. He no longer had a choice, he'd done what he'd done and it resulted in his being in a position where he pretty clearly could not retreat or even hurt me anymore.

I could have pounded him in the face until his nose was bloody and his eyes were black and blue. I could have then kept going until I'd beaten him unconscious or worse. With him being unable to retreat from that, would my doing that have been justified? No, I don't think so, because he was literally not in a position where he could harm me at that point.

What I actually did was ask him: "If I let you go, are you going to leave me alone?". He said yes - and I let him go, he left, and he never tried to bully me again - ever.

When that occurred, I was not analyzing it the way I am analyzing it now, as 'well, I can do this and it wouldn't be justified under the law, or I could have done that and it would be justified". At that point, I had never even examined the law in respect to self defense. I just acted the way I acted based on who I was and how I'd been brought up. But it is a pretty good example of how a defender *could* turn what is a justified use of force into an unjustified use of force - if I had made a different decision, if I had chosen to beat him silly once I had full advantage and ability to, I would have put myself in the wrong, despite being in the right initially.

Recommendations

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

I think the jury instructions may have talked about SYG. But I'm not sure. Little Star Jul 2013 #1
I heard the judge mention SYG during the instructions- but did not hear what bettyellen Jul 2013 #4
I thought I heard somewhere that SYG is actually part of the... Little Star Jul 2013 #5
There is no separate SYG law hack89 Jul 2013 #6
Then why the requirement for a separate hearing in order for "stand your ground" to be used? Skwmom Jul 2013 #9
There is a separate law regarding immunity from criminal and civil actions hack89 Jul 2013 #12
Thanks for the clarification. Skwmom Jul 2013 #20
That's an additional protection for the defendant, not a requirement. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #26
It was NOT used. They used plain self defense. nt LaydeeBug Jul 2013 #2
The defense did not employ SYG, and did not request Eleanors38 Jul 2013 #3
Not officially Horse with no Name Jul 2013 #7
I agree. That looks like what they did. Skwmom Jul 2013 #13
I think because of the issue over Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #23
SYG is about not having a duty to retreat anomiep Jul 2013 #8
Wouldn't it depend when the duty to retreat kicked in? Skwmom Jul 2013 #10
Under duty to retreat law anomiep Jul 2013 #16
What if you could safely retreat but decide to pursue and escalate a situation Skwmom Jul 2013 #24
It depends on your actions, the other person's actions and the circumstances anomiep Jul 2013 #25
And as a real life example anomiep Jul 2013 #28
Yes and no. DanTex Jul 2013 #11
Thanks for the clarification. Skwmom Jul 2013 #18
Getting a yes/no answer on a legal issue on DU ..... oldhippie Jul 2013 #14
Juror B37 says yes jbond56 Jul 2013 #15
In FL, legislation called SYG had more than one part ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #17
It was not used but IMO it was the means that allowed Z to think he had a right to carry a jwirr Jul 2013 #19
No, because according to the statement Zimmerman gave the police Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #21
My understanding of this is: The defense's case was... Spazito Jul 2013 #22
There was no opportunity to retreat from deadly force alleged, so no. cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Will someone please expla...»Reply #28