Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[pnewton]

And the Stand Your Ground law extends this right to any place you have right to be, no?

This is why this law needs to be re-examined. It opens the way to a wild-west style gunfight, where each party stands his ground, perceives the threat, then fires. This is why self-defense in a situation like this must be a defense to prosecution, not an exemption from being charged. The idea may be sound for home defense, or defense of one’s business, but in the public it permits misunderstanding to result in death.

 

[Bocephus]

With the cries on that tape reported to not belong to Zimmerman? I don’t think so.

Eh, if a piece of software conflicts with eyewitness testimony assuming he testifies that he’s positive it was Zimmerman he heard, then it’s gonna be a tough sell.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Source?

Prove it.

Published studies funded by the CDC have concluded these kinds of things:

for every time a gun in the home was used in a self defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. (J of Trauma, August, 1998. pp: 263-267).

…a firearm in the home represents a greater risk overall than the protection it may offer against intruders, either indirectly or by discouraging potential assaults. Kellermann noted that the study demonstrates the pervasiveness of domestic assault, as compared to better publicized crimes such as home invasion, but continued to stress the role of handguns in increasing the lethality of such assaults.

One study concluded “every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.”

The NRA criticized and nitpicked the finding, but even if it’s half of 43 to 1, or a quarter of 43 to 1, no matter how you slice it, a gun in a home is much more likely to shoot friends or family than any criminal.

 

[seekerz]

This is why this law needs to be re-examined. It opens the way to a wild-west style gunfight, where each party stands his ground, perceives the threat, then fires. This is why self-defense in a situation like this must be a defense to prosecution, not an exemption from being charged. The idea may be sound for home defense, or defense of one’s business, but in the public it permits misunderstanding to result in death.

I agree. Two people can* honestly misread *each other’s motives and intentions and because the law absolves them of the duty to retreat, one might very well end up dead for no reason whatsoever.

At the very least, the survivor should have to show a credible threat and the police should diligently set about to verify or disprove it.

Personally, I’d rather give up my right to ‘stand’ than kill an someone for nothing.

 

[Dawnia]

Just posting information. I haven’t even commented on the specifics of the situation. I have only voiced grave conserns with how the conversation is being handled.

Thanks for posting the information. My comment was directed at the article, not you. Sorry you thought so.

 

[pnewton]

Eh, if a piece of software conflicts with eyewitness testimony assuming he testifies that he’s positive it was Zimmerman he heard, then it’s gonna be a tough sell.

Not at all. Software also can be used to match fingerprints. If the science is sound, then it will be the testimony that is a hard sell. Don’f forget, we already have two conflicting testimonies as to who was on top. I am going to wait and see if either the state, federal or local agencies involved will stand by this forensic evidence or if it questionable.

 

[seekerz]

Not at all. Software also can be used to match fingerprints. If the science is sound, then it will be the testimony that is a hard sell. Don’f forget, we already have two conflicting testimonies as to who was on top. I am going to wait and see if either the state, federal or local agencies involved will stand by this forensic evidence or if it questionable.

I agree. Not all science is sufficiently reliable or peer-reviewed; like lie detector tests or air analysis of car trunks, for example.

We’ll have to see how strong the science of voice detection is.

 

[jen_fla]

I didn’t find anything there to disagree with. If I interpret correctly, you are saying that the danger or threat has to be imminent to justify self-defense, no?

yes, but defending yourself and using deadly force to defend yourself are not always the same thing. you can’t use deadly force in every situation where self defense might be called for.

deadly force is force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. - FS 776.06

in order for someone to use deadly force to protect themselves, they must reasonably believe that they were in an imminent life or death situation.

so for instance if two guys get into an argument and x pushes man y, y can’t pull out his gun and shoot x. y could push him back, kick him in the nuts, etc, but most jurors would not find use of deadly force in that case justified. if y fought back with fists and the other didn’t let up and really got the best of him and started pummeling his head against the pavement, at this point it could be reasonably argued that y had a right to shoot him.

there also might be a situation where a push, (say from body builder who is enraged) would be considered to put someone in a life or death situation (say the person they pushed was a tiny woman)… she might be found innocent of using deadly force to defend herself.

i guess the bottom line is what will a jury find to be reasonable.

 

[seekerz]

yes, but defending yourself and using deadly force to defend yourself are not always the same thing. you can’t use deadly force in every situation where self defense might be called for.

deadly force is force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. - FS 776.06

in order for someone to use deadly force to protect themselves, they must reasonably believe that they were in an imminent life or death situation.

I’ll grant you that. It just seems to me that without the duty to retreat and in the absence of eyewitnesses, any semi-intelligent person can make up a reasonable argument as to why they feared for their life.

 

[jen_fla]

it is good we are expanding upon “who came at whom first”. i was guilty of oversimplifying what can obviously be very complicated in the eyes of the law.

 

[seekerz]

it is good we are expanding upon “who came at whom first”. i was guilty of oversimplifying what can obviously be very complicated in the eyes of the law.

Complicated is exactly the word, which is why the overnight decision to accept the ‘self-defense’ justification (i.e. to deem no probable cause) makes no sense to me.

 

[jen_fla]

I’ll grant you that. It just seems to me that without the duty to retreat and in the absence of eyewitnesses, any semi-intelligent person can make up a reasonable argument as to why they feared for their life.

with or without the law, in the absence of witnesses or cameras, people can and do make up things all the time.

 

[Bocephus]

Not at all. Software also can be used to match fingerprints. If the science is sound, then it will be the testimony that is a hard sell. Don’f forget, we already have two conflicting testimonies as to who was on top. I am going to wait and see if either the state, federal or local agencies involved will stand by this forensic evidence or if it questionable.

Yes, but if I’m not mistaken one witness says they could see the colors of their shirts while the other could not, right? I could see the reliability of this software in some situations, but I’m not so sure it will be easy to hold up of one of the witnesses was a actually close enough to positively identify the two.

 

[seekerz]

with or without the law, in the absence of witnesses or cameras, people can and do make up things all the time.

True. Which is why every case of a dead spouse or child is investigated so thoroughly - even for years, with or without probable cause to arrest anyone. Whether it was because of Stand Your Ground or not, this open and shut police ‘investigation’ leaves much to be desired.

 

[maryjk]

I agree. Not all science is sufficiently reliable or peer-reviewed; like lie detector tests or air analysis of car trunks, for example.

We’ll have to see how strong the science of voice detection is.

And if it gets to a jury, what they think of it. DNA evidence it sound science. But many juries just don’t seem to find it credible. And it is totally up to them what they believe and how they weigh the evidence.

i guess the bottom line is what will a jury find to be reasonable.

Exactly. A jury may weigh any evidence presented to them, however they want. There are no rules that they have to go with the science.

In addition, a DA generally has to believe he has a winnable case. If he doesn’t think he can win, he doesn’t have to bring the case to court. Of course, with this case, the DA won’t have that option.

 

[Dawnia]

I’ll grant you that. It just seems to me that without the duty to retreat and in the absence of eyewitnesses, any semi-intelligent person can make up a reasonable argument as to why they feared for their life.

They still could do that under self-defense, regardless if there is a “stand your ground” law.

 

[seekerz]

And if it gets to a jury, what they think of it. DNA evidence it sound science. But many juries just don’t seem to find it credible. And it is totally up to them what they believe and how they weigh the evidence.

Exactly. A jury may weigh any evidence presented to them, however they want. There are no rules that they have to go with the science.

In addition, a DA generally has to believe he has a winnable case. If he doesn’t think he can win, he doesn’t have to bring the case to court. Of course, with this case, the DA won’t have that option.

DNA evidence is virtually foolproof unless samples have been contaminated or deliberately switched. I guess there’s no law against jurors who refuse to use their God-given higher faculties…

 

[seekerz]

They still could do that under self-defense, regardless if there is a “stand your ground” law.

True, but they’d have one less question to answer in court: “Why didn’t you run/hide/stop pursuing/wait for the police?”

 

[jen_fla]

Complicated is exactly the word, which is why the overnight decision to accept the ‘self-defense’ justification (i.e. to deem no probable cause) makes no sense to me.

i totally agree that this wasn’t investigated as thoroughly as it should have been, but then again we don’t have exactly all the information the police had at the time.

i’d like to see how many witnesses have come forward with new information after this case garnered so much attention.

 

[seekerz]

Yes, but if I’m not mistaken one witness says they could see the colors of their shirts while the other could not, right? I could see the reliability of this software in some situations, but I’m not so sure it will be easy to hold up of one of the witnesses was a actually close enough to positively identify the two.

It would come down to the reliability of the science versus the reliability of eye witness testimony (which to my knowledge, ain’t all that great).