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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Could "stand your ground" laws be [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)11. the problem I have with duty to retreat
is as I explained on Thom Hartmann's forum.
On the show, Thom used the example of defending yourself from a violent car jacker under the old law. He was correct in that you would have to demostrate that your life was threatened. What he did not mention was:
you, victim of the car jacking, would be arrested and charged with murder. If the DA decides not to go to trial because it is a clear case self defense, or decides to go to trial (whatever reason) and you are aquitted, your problems are not over. But you are not getting off because of "duty to retreat" which says you should have retreat (often putting you in more danger) and given up your car. In the real world, of Thom's example you go to jail for being a crime victim. Even if it is a clear case of self defense and even if your attackers have extensive felony records, the attacker's family can still sue you for wrongful death. In the end, you are not only a victim of a crime, you are deep in debt due to legal fees and a possible civil jugement even though you did nothing wrong. How is that just? Think that would not happen? I'm old enough to remember a high profile shooting by Bernhard Goetz. All of that happened to him plus the media falsely accusing him and the NY jury of racism even though this was a year after Austin Weeks, an African American subway worker, shot and killed one of two white attackers. The grand jury did not even push the illegal gun charge.
you, victim of the car jacking, would be arrested and charged with murder. If the DA decides not to go to trial because it is a clear case self defense, or decides to go to trial (whatever reason) and you are aquitted, your problems are not over. But you are not getting off because of "duty to retreat" which says you should have retreat (often putting you in more danger) and given up your car. In the real world, of Thom's example you go to jail for being a crime victim. Even if it is a clear case of self defense and even if your attackers have extensive felony records, the attacker's family can still sue you for wrongful death. In the end, you are not only a victim of a crime, you are deep in debt due to legal fees and a possible civil jugement even though you did nothing wrong. How is that just? Think that would not happen? I'm old enough to remember a high profile shooting by Bernhard Goetz. All of that happened to him plus the media falsely accusing him and the NY jury of racism even though this was a year after Austin Weeks, an African American subway worker, shot and killed one of two white attackers. The grand jury did not even push the illegal gun charge.
There was a case in Tampa about six or seven months ago where a kid (middle school, IIRC) stabbed a bully to death. The facts of the case was this:
It was a public street
Several bullying complaints were filed with the school, all well documented
bully and several of his friends surrounded the killer and attacked him
victim stabbed bully to death.
Bully's parents were shocked SHOCKED that their innocent child (our boy would never bully or harm anyone, that nerd was just making shit up.) would be struck down in his youth and demanded justice from the state and the civil system. Judge said self defense, bully's parents whined to the media that their little angel was the victim.
Call me jaded, but Zimmerman is the exception, not the rule.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
But that exact same path was always there, whether the law is 'stand your ground'
petronius
Mar 2012
#8
I don't think mere CLAIMS are going to be sufficient, nor should they be.
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#16
The court always had and always will leave a path for anyone to claim self-defense.
krispos42
Mar 2012
#39