General Discussion

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)

57. You don't undertand what edweird is saying...

Fri May 11, 2012, 10:38 AM

May 2012

SYG is not required for the prosocution to decide wether or not to charge someone in a murder (that they belive was self defense). SYG is irrelevent to charging someone with the murder whether they claim self defense or not.

For example, Ohio does not have SYG law. If I defend myself walking down the street in Ohio and the attacker dies... I may not have to go to trial if the prosocution feels it was self defense. This is no different than in Florida which does have SYG laws. If the floridia prosocution feels that you killed someone and it wasn't self defense they can certainly put you on trial - SYG can't stop that. Simply "claiming" self defense is not enough... the prosocution and police have to agree. The Zimmerman case is PROOF of this... Zimmerman killed someone and claimed self defense yet he is still going to trial for murder.

SYG is really only addresses two issues... burden of proof and civil liability. SYG establishes that the state must prove you are guilty of the crime before convicing you and it provides civil immunity (from wrongful death lawsuits) for people excercising self defense. SYG cannot prevent charges from being filed... that power to determine whether a case is self-defense has always rested with the prosocution (whether or not state even has SYG).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The police have no duty to protect you. Really, they don't. [View all] Zalatix May 2012 OP

They all need to remove Serve and Protect from their badges liberal N proud May 2012 #1

They serve and protect the law, their superiors/brothers not necessarily us. jp11 May 2012 #20

Protect and serve? Bake May 2012 #21

"protect and serve" -- isn't that basically a PR motto of the LAPD? FarCenter May 2012 #26

Agree 1000% Serve The Servants May 2012 #120

Or perhaps truth in advertising? "To Serve and Protect the 1%" Zalatix May 2012 #121

Four justices need to be removed from the court n/t me b zola May 2012 #136

Old article but typical Scalia lunatica May 2012 #2

It up held an even older precedent ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #5

The Felonious 5 have to, don't they? xchrom May 2012 #3

Make that 7... -..__... May 2012 #29

never mind. Pathwalker May 2012 #43

Yep. That's why the 'duty to retreat' boggles my mind and why I'm pro - 'Stand Your Ground'. Edweird May 2012 #4

True. randome May 2012 #6

Unpunished bongbong May 2012 #9

People ALREADY 'get away with it if they have a good enough story'. Edweird May 2012 #10

ok bongbong May 2012 #16

I've never been assaulted by a speed limit sign. Edweird May 2012 #19

You haven't? bongbong May 2012 #37

I live in Montana, and we didn't have speed limits outside of town for a while. ZombieHorde May 2012 #39

Maybe that's why I saw all those crosses lining the roads Art_from_Ark May 2012 #140

That is a more recent trend. ZombieHorde May 2012 #141

My trip to Montana was in 1991 Art_from_Ark May 2012 #142

I don't remember the crosses that far back, but the no speed limit thing was after that date. ZombieHorde May 2012 #143

Nope, no speed limit sign has ever been the least bit aggressive towards me. Edweird May 2012 #41

Try to get out more bongbong May 2012 #79

Whatever. Did you have a point? Edweird May 2012 #81

I want accountability to a jury not to one person who's job it is to win cases jp11 May 2012 #22

You are describing a trial. Which happens after a crime (or charges have been brought). Edweird May 2012 #28

So you think that there should be no trial when someone kills someone else. EOTE May 2012 #38

If it's self defense, no I don't think there should. Edweird May 2012 #40

You're a hoot. So who decides what's self defense or not? The shooter? EOTE May 2012 #42

I feel the same way about your position as you do about mine. Edweird May 2012 #44

What you're calling for is Anarchy. EOTE May 2012 #45

I haven't heard anything about Florida descending into anarchy since SYG passed. Edweird May 2012 #46

What you are asking for is not SYG. EOTE May 2012 #47

Uh, SYG is *EXACTLY* and *SPECIFICALLY* what I'm talking about. Edweird May 2012 #48

You say that you don't think there should be a trial when "self defense" is claimed. EOTE May 2012 #49

I have news for you - the police have had that kind of discretion the whole time. Edweird May 2012 #50

So you believe that civil suits should be allowed? EOTE May 2012 #51

I've stated my position clearly and consistently REPEATEDLY. Edweird May 2012 #52

So either you're being inconsistent and you think that trials SHOULD be allowed. EOTE May 2012 #53

I support SYG. SYG's purpose was to prevent civil suits. Edweird May 2012 #55

Ahhh, so you DO want Zimmermans going free in every state. EOTE May 2012 #56

You don't undertand what edweird is saying... OneTenthofOnePercent May 2012 #57

The immunity from civil liability is what's so sick about that. EOTE May 2012 #60

SYG had NOTHING to do with the delay in charging zimmerman. OneTenthofOnePercent May 2012 #61

No, it just makes it so that when the police fuck up, there's no recourse. EOTE May 2012 #63

Like what? Edweird May 2012 #64

How about a civil suit? EOTE May 2012 #66

A civil suit against? Edweird May 2012 #68

If you're incapable of figuring that out, there's really no point in continuing. EOTE May 2012 #69

Let's hear your grand plan. I want to see what you propose and then show where SYG prevented it. Edweird May 2012 #70

You haven't even attempted to respond to numerous points, so that would be an excersize in futility. EOTE May 2012 #71

No plan? No cites of SYG? Still no honesty? Please substantantiate your claims of MY dishonesty. Edweird May 2012 #72

And once again, you've failed to address numerous issues I've brought up and continue to. EOTE May 2012 #74

Then we are finally done here since you are unwilling (unable) to back your uninformed claims. Edweird May 2012 #75

All you're doing is embarrasing yourself. You need to educate yourself. Edweird May 2012 #62

If your anarchistic view of justice is what's considered "education", no thanks. EOTE May 2012 #65

I'm a Florida resident and I know what the SYG laws does and does not do. You clearly do not. Edweird May 2012 #67

Yup, Stand Your Ground is not the problem here. Zalatix May 2012 #15

I agree with you, but to an extent. Serve The Servants May 2012 #123

Property is important, human lives are not varelse May 2012 #7

No. It is impossible for the police to protect everyone all the time. hack89 May 2012 #33

They don't have the duty guitar man May 2012 #8

That's a rational assessment of the issue. randome May 2012 #12

Holy Vigilante Gospel Gunuttery Fail jpak May 2012 #11

Gun nuttery, where? Zalatix May 2012 #14

The gunners use this argument... ellisonz May 2012 #73

Oh I'm sorry, is the OP factually wrong? Zalatix May 2012 #78

It's impossible for the police to protect everyone all the time. baldguy May 2012 #87

So when you have an armed intruder in your house do you wait for the cops to come Zalatix May 2012 #88

So guns are the one and only solution to any, every & all problems. baldguy May 2012 #90

Tasers should be another widely available option. Zalatix May 2012 #91

Oh, right! That's a GREAT idea! Let's have MORE weapons & MORE violence! baldguy May 2012 #92

On your side are nothing but dead victims who died because they couldn't defend themselves. Zalatix May 2012 #93

Seems to me you're finally admitting the obvious. baldguy May 2012 #94

I'm admitting that you despise a family's right to self-defense. You want the criminals to rule. Zalatix May 2012 #95

Absurd. ellisonz May 2012 #112

Okay so an armed intruder is in your house. You have kids, too. How do you defend your family? Zalatix May 2012 #115

Depends. ellisonz May 2012 #116

No one was talking about an assault rifle. I suggested using a taser directly upthread. Zalatix May 2012 #117

Who is anti-self defense? ellisonz May 2012 #124

I was talking about tasers, not assault rifles, what's your obsession with assault rifles? Zalatix May 2012 #127

Ok, I'm listening sarisataka May 2012 #99

I've never seen an intelligent answer to your question from a gun control advocate - nt badtoworse May 2012 #102

I am an optimist sarisataka May 2012 #104

The answer from them is to flee. Run away, call the cops, and hope insurance covers your losses. Zalatix May 2012 #119

Stage 4 arthritis in doth knees sarisataka May 2012 #130

Tough luck. No guns allowed, no survival for you! Zalatix May 2012 #131

Reasonable, humane action. n/t ellisonz May 2012 #113

That is a start sarisataka May 2012 #135

I asked that question, too. The anti-self defense extremists have no answer. Zalatix May 2012 #118

Maybe we really do need to be able to protect ourselves. - nt badtoworse May 2012 #24

Moar gun nuttery fail! We need to pray the cops reach us before the intruder kills or rapes us. Zalatix May 2012 #77

Paul Kersey-wannabe's with Phallic Replacment issues. Add to which, the article is SEVEN YEARS OLD. apocalypsehow May 2012 #30

So are you saying that since the article is 7 years old, it is factually incorrect? Zalatix May 2012 #82

Uhhh, I made no "argument." Start there, perhaps. apocalypsehow May 2012 #85

FACT!!! You said the article is 7 years old. "Fail all around". Zalatix May 2012 #86

FACT!!! I don't care what silly semantics games you like to play on the internet. apocalypsehow May 2012 #96

FACT!!! You said the article is 7 years old. "Fail all around". That is not a SEMANTIC GAME. Zalatix May 2012 #97

Yes, it is a semantics game, coupled with several falsehoods you continue to spew. apocalypsehow May 2012 #98

What falsehoods? The article is 7 years old but it is quite correct. You claimed it was "fail". Zalatix May 2012 #101

There is not a "backtrack" in sight, and now you're just making non sensical claims that anyone can apocalypsehow May 2012 #105

You are sparring with Jello(tm). PavePusher May 2012 #106

If you're going to follow me around DU trying to re-argue an argument you clearly lost, you should apocalypsehow May 2012 #108

Oh but just about "everyone" supports him/her. It's obvious!!! Zalatix May 2012 #111

Ms. Gonzales should have complained about an OWS group in front of her house... L0oniX May 2012 #13

Sad but true. nt raouldukelives May 2012 #23

The only duty of the pigs is to protect the rich. backscatter712 May 2012 #17

Why are we paying taxes to these people? Baitball Blogger May 2012 #18

Who didn't know this? Your protection is your responsibility. ileus May 2012 #25

100% correct, but that is a reality that the gun control crowd does not like to face. badtoworse May 2012 #27

Ayup, nailed it on the head. Zalatix May 2012 #34

It would be so much more civilized if we just shot each other? daaron May 2012 #59

so Go Vols May 2012 #100

Or your pistol could be taken away from you and used against you. daaron May 2012 #103

Your scenarios are far too limited, by your own bias-filter. PavePusher May 2012 #107

Want to share with us why you need to tote at Presidential campaign rallies? ellisonz May 2012 #114

Really? I'd like to see those statistics you speak of. Zalatix May 2012 #110

If a gun is intended for self-defense, it should be readily accessable in a holster on your belt.... PavePusher May 2012 #129

A gun not in use is properly locked up sarisataka May 2012 #134

But, they can strip search anyone they want. Octafish May 2012 #31

So the govt can make sure you aren't having gay sex, but stopping people who want to kill you? Naah. ck4829 May 2012 #32

Maybe they could do more protecting and serving if TheKentuckian May 2012 #35

We need to look at alternative methods of law enforcement. Zalatix May 2012 #36

The police are there to clean up the blood, and possibly arrest the perpetrator. cigsandcoffee May 2012 #54

Away with this gun nuttery talk! When criminals attack, we're just supposed to call the police Zalatix May 2012 #76

I guess that means. daaron May 2012 #58

We need to talk about a serious overhaul of the law enforcement system. Zalatix May 2012 #83

Better take out that line in the oath and motto "to serve and protect" nolabels May 2012 #80

serve and protect...they don't say "the people" LynnTheDem May 2012 #84

They protect private property, and preSERVE order. NT. Mc Mike May 2012 #89

Why would anyone think they do? RB TexLa May 2012 #109

More than enough reason to have a legit militia started. Great Caesars Ghost May 2012 #122

The Black Panthers tried that. COINTELPRO was the end result. Zalatix May 2012 #128

Well we need to figure a way to keep it secret. Great Caesars Ghost May 2012 #137

The invention of drones made that impossible. Zalatix May 2012 #138

Drones have limitations. Great Caesars Ghost May 2012 #139

A good reason to train in self defense. Serve The Servants May 2012 #125

Scalia is a fucking piece of shit. AverageJoe90 May 2012 #126

that is some BS heyhoheyho May 2012 #132

How so? PavePusher May 2012 #133