10-06-2005, 02:42 PM | #41 (permalink) |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
If there are no other extenuating circumstances then on the surface it looks like the manager was wrong to pursue the guy outside. I can't imagine why he would though unless he felt it was a him or me situation, and he had a better chance of defending himself outside with less chance of anyone else getting hurt. I guess he could/should have locked the doors and called 911.
Last edited by flstf; 10-06-2005 at 05:09 PM.. Reason: changed persue to pursue |
10-06-2005, 02:57 PM | #42 (permalink) | |
Unbelievable
Location: Grants Pass OR
|
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2005, 01:18 AM | #43 (permalink) |
Banned
|
As usual, 8 other things besides the real issue are being brought into the context for no reason.
The issue is not if you can kill someone. The issue is not if "duty to retreat" is the opposite of "pursuing". Before: If someone attacked you, you were required to extricate yourself from the situation and if, and ONLY if, you could not remove yourself from the altercation, could you then MATCH force to defend yourself. Even if you kicked the person in the shins in defense, you would have to have proved you could not get away from the attacker to justify that simple battery. When it came down to it, you could only ever match force, this new law does nothing to change that. All it does is says you no longer HAVE TO try and run before defending yourself. So, now if someone kicks you in the shins, you can kick right back to defend yourself. Everyone immediately wants to go to guns on this topic, but it has fuck all to do with guns, it has only to do with being required to try and run from the attack, vs. now you can defend yourself without first having to try to get away. You can now stand your ground if attacked. Simple, not complicated. "You shall not stir one foot to seek a foe" - Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet... if the attacker attempts to exit, any further actions to pursue them on your part are now attack, and you will be held responsible for your actions. I still have NO fucking clue why the hell london and chicago got pulled into this whole bullshit mess of a thread. Totally irrelevant. There's just no need to complicate matters, and that's all that seems to be happening in this thread. |
10-07-2005, 04:30 AM | #44 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Here's the full citation:
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2005, 04:34 AM | #45 (permalink) |
Born Against
|
In Florida, there are two situations where there was no duty to retreat even before the new law: in your home, and in your place of business.
SO if we want to understand what the effect of the new law will likely be (everywhere, eg in public places), we can look at case histories of what people were allowed to do in their homes and in their places of business. That's why I posted that case, and there are several others like it. |
10-07-2005, 06:19 AM | #46 (permalink) | |
Unbelievable
Location: Grants Pass OR
|
If you read why that decision was made, it had nothing to do with not having the duty to retreat, it had to do with incompetence on the part of the states attorney. The state has the burden of proof, and they dropped the ball.
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2005, 07:26 AM | #47 (permalink) | ||
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
That's why: Quote:
|
||
10-07-2005, 08:57 AM | #48 (permalink) |
Insane
|
To go back to what Analog said, this case doesn't appear to have relevance to the new law, as the 'duty to retreat' did not factor in the judgement.
If the new law was truly necessary to protect the rights of Floridians to life and liberty, then this need would be demonstrated through either one or both of the following: 1) Significant numbers of citizens being convicted of manslaughter in cases where they were rightly defending themselves or others. 2) Significant cases of citizens being harmed by assailants while attempting to flee the attack instead of responding with force, in order to perform within the law. Unless these can be demonstrated, the need for the new law remains purely hypothetical, and thus we should be extremely wary of enacting such a law without fully contemplating potential negatives. Josh |
10-07-2005, 09:03 AM | #49 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2005, 09:17 AM | #50 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
The relevance to the new law, is that principle now expands to apply everywhere, not just within one's home or place of business. So what the manager did (assuming that he did so because he reasonably thought his assailant was going for a gun) presumably can now be done legally by anybody anywhere in Florida. Last edited by raveneye; 10-07-2005 at 09:29 AM.. Reason: added "reasonably" |
|
10-07-2005, 09:50 AM | #51 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
To introduce such a hazard would be understandable if it were correcting a demonstrable failure in the law, but as I cited before, until that failure is demonstrated (and I have yet to see the cases brought forward to do so), it is irresponsible to do so. Introducing a problem to correct a hypothetical one is not generally a basis for good legislation. |
|
10-07-2005, 09:54 AM | #52 (permalink) | |
Easy Rider
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
|
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2005, 11:32 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
Unbelievable
Location: Grants Pass OR
|
Quote:
|
|
10-07-2005, 12:05 PM | #54 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: cj, do you know what the legal term "deny under traverse of oath" means? If there wasn't any legal basis for the dispute of the material fact that the defendent thought the assailant was going for a gun, then they can't challenge it or may even stipulate it. On what basis do you think the state could have denied the defendant's belief as a factual matter? The only way to dispute his belief about the victim obtaining a gun would have been to have witnesses saying that he didn't really believe it, or a confession. Short of either of those, there wasn't much for the prosecutor to do other than state as opinion that the defendant wasn't really in fear of his life. I'm not sure where you got the notion that the state was incompetent.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 10-07-2005 at 12:15 PM.. |
|||
Tags |
duty, florida, law, retreat |
|
|