"stand your ground" doesn't work

[nhgunnut]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The law, as it stands now, seems to give people the ability to instigate a situation and then shoot their way out of it. That is just so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't really have words for it. OK, maybe "wrong" is a good enough word for it.

If the Choice is to punish someone for protecting themselves for using deadly force because you don't like or trust their motivations than that is mot just wrong it is evil . From what I have I don't particularly like Zimmerman, but the moment it when hands on, he was within his rights to use deadly force. Suspicious following or even hateful speech is not grounds for assault. Being and A**hole does not end your right to defend yourself. The moment it does then being and A**hole out of season becomes a crime. Given a choice I will choose a "Stand your Ground" with it's flaws over a "Must Retreat" state every time !

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

Suspicious following or even hateful speech is not grounds for assault.

That depends on the "hateful speech", and the context in which it was used.

See: Fighting words.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

You miss my point. Under this law you can essentially pick a fight, then blow away your opponent if things go against you. That is WRONG. It would also fall under a reasonable definition of evil.

To my mind the law must be amended, to take this into account. If you create the situation, then you should not be able to then claim self defence.

[nhgunnut]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You miss my point. Under this law you can essentially pick a fight, then blow away your opponent if things go against you. That is WRONG. It would also fall under a reasonable definition of evil.

To my mind the law must be amended, to take this into account. If you create the situation, then you should not be able to then claim self defence.

The issue is how do you Judge if someone created the situation? There are NO Grounds in the United States Where Speech and Speech Alone Justifies Assault. It is insane to think that because I choose because I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights that I give up My First First Amendment Rights. Which seems Constructing a Law in the Manner which seem to be suggesting demands. So If I am have a discussion with someone that escalates to an argument I am 55 have had 3 heart attacks (that by the way is an accurate description) and this 35 year old says I will kill you old man and swings , did I start a fight ? Or am I justified in using deadly force?
I really wound't argue that FL couldn't use some tweaking. At the same time the idea that I give up First Amendment rights if I choose to Protect myself is just nuts.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

The issue is how do you Judge if someone created the situation? There are NO Grounds in the United States Where Speech and Speech Alone Justifies Assault. It is insane to think that because I choose because I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights that I give up My First First Amendment Rights. Which seems Constructing a Law in the Manner which seem to be suggesting demands. So If I am have a discussion with someone that escalates to an argument I am 55 have had 3 heart attacks (that by the way is an accurate description) and this 35 year old says I will kill you old man and swings , did I start a fight ? Or am I justified in using deadly force?
I really wound't argue that FL couldn't use some tweaking. At the same time the idea that I give up First Amendment rights if I choose to Protect myself is just nuts.

I would say that a good test case would involve someone stalking and then accosting someone, who is apparently minding his own business while walking through a neighbourhood where he has reason to be.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I would say that a good test case would involve someone stalking and then accosting someone, who is apparently minding his own business while walking through a neighbourhood where he has reason to be.

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Just because he was wrong to instigate, doesn't prove that he was wrong to defend himself. If in fact he feared for his life.

Aren't judges & juries smart enough to consider each issue separately?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Just because he was wrong to instigate, doesn't prove that he was wrong to defend himself. If in fact he feared for his life.

Aren't judges & juries smart enough to consider each issue separately?

The issues aren't separate.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Right. I was just carrying a backpack full of gasoline past the bonfire.

I should just be charged with an improper container violation, not manslaughter.

JC

[Homeslice]

Whether or not someone was picking a fight is a big gray area.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Whether or not someone was picking a fight is a big gray area.

That's precisely why Florida's stand your ground law needs tightening up.

JC