“Stand your ground” shooter arrested

[Ellen Brown]

Oregon has a law that is called "Home Owner is King", so it means that IF you are home, and you believe your life is threatened, you may use lethal force on an intruder. Outside the home, it is very difficult to make a case for the use of lethal force. I have heard the story, but do not plan to watch it on video. Enough is too much. Such activity is best left to Sworn Officers.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the theory. But reasonable fear in some minds is a white being afraid of any male with dark skin.

That's not "reasonable".

 

[Revoltingest]

Enough is too much. Such activity is best left to Sworn Officers.

Self defense is seldom left to officers.
The latter simply aren't there when needed.
And even they make mistakes....or worse.
So it's up to the justice system to determine which killings
are in self defense or are unreasonable & prosecution-worthy,
in the latter case, prosecution is essential.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oregon has a law that is called "Home Owner is King", so it means that IF you are home, and you believe your life is threatened, you may use lethal force on an intruder. Outside the home, it is very difficult to make a case for the use of lethal force. I have heard the story, but do not plan to watch it on video. Enough is too much. Such activity is best left to Sworn Officers.

The video is disturbing. The man is talking to someone in the car parked in a disabled spot. A large man comes out of the store and assaults the man once by doing a blind side shove on him knocking him to the ground. He was still several feet away not advancing towards the man on the ground when the man knocked down draws his concealed weapon and fires once. He was not being physically threatened at that point. He might have been justified in drawing his weapon, but not in firing it. It is clearly manslaughter at the least.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But he wasn't. You need to look back on the trial. Zimmerman followed him for a bit when he ran. He called in 911 and quit following. There was no evidence that he continued to follow Martin. If I remember correct Martin even called his girlfriend and said that he was going back. Acckk! I don't want to dig up that case again.

I don't either, but that's not how I remember it going down.

I think it's another good example of how flawed the "stand your ground" law is. Zimmerman could have been "standing his ground" when he shot Martin after Martin attacked him. But Martin could have been "standing his ground" when attacking Zimmerman, whom he saw following him around and obviously thought Zimmerman was a threat to him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't either, but that's not how I remember it going down.

I think it's another good example of how flawed the "stand your ground" law is. Zimmerman could have been "standing his ground" when he shot Martin after Martin attacked him. But Martin could have been "standing his ground" when attacking Zimmerman, whom he saw following him around and obviously thought Zimmerman was a threat to him.

I am not sure how the law works since I don't live there. But I do believe an attack would be needed first. In an public area one can't simply "stand one's ground". At your home is a different matter. And I do not think that Zimmerman's defense used the "stand your ground" law. They simply argued self defense. That is legal anywhere as a defense. I do not think simply following someone would be grounds for that law. That is also why this case will end up with a conviction. It was not a stand your ground case just as your examples are not such. Nor was it self defense for the attacked man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From my reading "Stand Your Ground" does not apply in this case at all:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

It applies mainly to a house or dwelling where one has a legal presence:

"(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:"

It was outside. And the store was not even a "house or dwelling".

 

[PureX]

Claiming it is one thing. There would be no evidence of a continual attack. In fact the evidence would be contrary to that. There was evidence of a continual attack in Zimmerman's case. This is a very poor comparison.

There would be "evidence" of both a continued attack, and of there being no continued attack, because that's what lawyers do. They present whatever evidence supports their claims and let the jury decide. And when there is no video, or other credible witnesses, the guy gets off even though he may well be guilty.

Which is why MOTIVE needs to matter. And that's what this 'stand-your-ground' nonsense negates: motive. The motive of a wanna-be-tough-guy type personality carrying a loaded gun deliberately into a scenario where an altercation is likely to occur. In a word, playing "lawman" because he's just itching to shoot someone. And this stupid law justifies and encourages this behavior, rather than calling it a motive for murder, which is what it ends up being.

 

[sun rise]

That's not "reasonable".

That was my point - people abuse laws

 

[Revoltingest]

That was my point - people abuse laws

Despite all their flaws, the courts are there to handle this.

 

[Stanyon]

Laziness and not giving a damn, while contemptible, don't justify summary execution.

I didn't imply that it does:

The cop probably did not know the full story at the time but the shooter is clearly an idiot and deserves to be punished. That said, I see people parking in handicap zones all the time when they clearly aren't and without a handicap sign or tag, is it laziness or just not giving a damn?

 

[suncowiam]

We should note that "stand your ground" laws are about self defense.
It is not a license to shoot anyone. There must be a reasonable fear
of loss of life or limb.

If cops can't get it right, what do we expect of civilians?

And I'm referring to cops killing innocents when they perceive that their lives are in danger.

 

[Revoltingest]

If cops can't get it right, what do we expect of civilians?

There are no guarantees that anyone armed will do the right thing,
be they cops, soldiers, or civilians. But self defense by its very
nature is a responsibility which falls on civilians. Cops are not there.

And I'm referring to cops killing innocents when they perceive that their lives are in danger.

Cops are imperfect, but having them be armed on the job is still a net benefit.

 

[suncowiam]

There are no guarantees that anyone armed will do the right thing,
be they cops, soldiers, or civilians. But self defense by its very
nature is a responsibility which falls on civilians. Cops are not there.

Cops are imperfect, but having them be armed on the job is still a net benefit.

That's the problem that I'm addressing with these types of laws, which you've perfectly highlighted.

 

[Loviatar]

Speaking as someone who generally agrees with the left that US gun laws are far too loose: this is only a good argument against horribly broad interpretations of "stand your ground" that clash with the intent of those laws. So far as I know, they're explicitly about defending a home from intruders who pose a violent threat, as opposed to the "duty to retreat" states like New York have that honestly does seem like it posits no real right to self-defense/defense of property.

It's not a license to just shoot some guy who shoved you and started walking away. That's vastly disproportionate force against someone who isn't even currently attacking you. I agree that manslaughter is too lenient, it was murder.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the problem that I'm addressing with these types of laws, which you've perfectly highlighted.

It's a law with problems.
But without the law, there are also problems, ie,
prosecuting people for legitimate self defense.
The question is about the net benefit of one
over the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There would be "evidence" of both a continued attack, and of there being no continued attack, because that's what lawyers do. They present whatever evidence supports their claims and let the jury decide. And when there is no video, or other credible witnesses, the guy gets off even though he may well be guilty.

Which is why MOTIVE needs to matter. And that's what this 'stand-your-ground' nonsense negates: motive. The motive of a wanna-be-tough-guy type personality carrying a loaded gun deliberately into a scenario where an altercation is likely to occur. In a word, playing "lawman" because he's just itching to shoot someone. And this stupid law justifies and encourages this behavior, rather than calling it a motive for murder, which is what it ends up being.

How could there be such evidence in this case? You don't get to sat there would be evidence without presenting any.

And you are making up your own narrative again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking as someone who generally agrees with the left that US gun laws are far too loose: this is only a good argument against horribly broad interpretations of "stand your ground" that clash with the intent of those laws. So far as I know, they're explicitly about defending a home from intruders who pose a violent threat, as opposed to the "duty to retreat" states like New York have that honestly does seem like it posits no real right to self-defense/defense of property.

It's not a license to just shoot some guy who shoved you and started walking away. That's vastly disproportionate force against someone who isn't even currently attacking you. I agree that manslaughter is too lenient, it was murder.

I agree. But a trial has to be based upon what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For that reason I think manslaughter is the more reasonable charge.

 

[suncowiam]

It's a law with problems.
But without the law, there are also problems, ie,
prosecuting people for legitimate self defense.
The question is about the net benefit of one
over the other.

I'm not suggesting to persecute people in legitimate self defense.

But the issue arises only after the harmful act to determine what is legitimate and not...

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not suggesting to persecute people in legitimate self defense.

But the issue arises only after the harmful act to determine what is legitimate and not...

No argument here.