Trayvon Martin Case Prompts Civil Rights Commission Investigation On Stand Your Ground Laws

[JDPriestly]

28. The prosecutor only files charges if there is a question as to whether the murder was justified.

The difference is that with the Stand Your Ground laws, the prosecutor is under pressure to decide against a murder charge because the defendant who successfully defends with a Stand Your Ground defense has certain remedies if he is charged and it is later determined that he was killing in self-defense.

I think we are agreeing on the fundamentals. Prosecutors are not required to bring charges. They can choose not to if they think that the self-defense is a no-brainer. But usually they are cautious about that.

But, prosecutors can't argue the defense of self-defense in the courtroom.

I object to the language "Duty to Retreat." We have a duty not to kill. Then we have a duty to defend. But the first duty is not to kill. Goes back to the Ten Commandments and maybe further than that. The duty to protect life is ancillary to the duty not to kill.

But I take it that you agree with me that the self-defense evidence and arguments have to presented by the defendant. The prosecutor may decide not to bring charges but can't argue against the charges he or she decided to bring.

Maybe I misunderstood your original question and I do disagree with the expression "duty to retreat." It is a duty to avoid a fight if you can, a duty to protect life if you can. Self-defense is justified only rarely.

Remember, many people are completely defenseless. We don't want to encourage people to carry deadly weapons, whether knives or guns just in case -- and then out of unwarranted fear kill some innocent person.

The language duty to retreat makes it sound like the duty to protect the lives of others is some subversive idea. It isn't.