Home » The Crystal Hall » Questions and Answers » Stand Your Ground (The laws about use of deadly force in "Self Defense")
| Stand Your Ground [message #55839] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 16:22  |
 Isodecan
Messages: 844
Registered: May 2011
Location: Fort Worth, TX |
|
|
|
|
Although this question came to me as a result of the recent shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, the Florida law in question dates to 2005, and there are similar laws many of them passed before 2007 in our universe in several other states. Are there laws like this in the Whateley Universe that make it more legally acceptable for a civilian to shoot and kill another civilian than it would be for a cop to do so?
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55843 is a reply to message #55839 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 18:31  |
amratner
Messages: 271
Registered: January 2012
Location: NH, US |
|
|
|
Most of the news stories on the recent incident totally mis-represent the law. The shooter will almost certainly be indicted by the grand jury, and probably convicted.
The "stand your ground" law does NOT allow civilians to shoot except when they believe they (or another innocent person) is in grave danger, same as police.
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55844 is a reply to message #55843 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 18:51 |
Isodecan
Messages: 844
Registered: May 2011
Location: Fort Worth, TX |
|
|
|
|
Possibly, It still seems like asking for trouble, and the increase in the number of "Justified" Homicides would appear to indicate that it is. The question however, is whether such laws exist in the Whateley Universe, not whether they are good or bad. It seems to me that such laws would be really popular with H1 types. Oh, and my apology for my initial phrasing, but I have less faith in the judgement of someone who decides to buy and carry a gun than I do in the judgement of a police office who is supposed to be trained to distinguish how much of a threat a person presents, and even they make errors.
[Updated on: Sat, 24 March 2012 19:04]
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55847 is a reply to message #55844 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 19:27 |
kraftykeltic
Messages: 69
Registered: May 2011
Location: PA |
|
|
|
There are individuals who are using this incident to cause problems or to advance political agendas and to stir up trouble.
The police are investigating and at this time they have not made a determination.
When the ilk of Jackson, Farakan and Sharpton are involved there are always rushes to judgment and trouble follows. We also have the president making inane statements once again, that are biased and have no basis in fact. Please wait for the facts to come out.
Please let this play out without added rancor. The facts when they are presented will either convict or exonerate. Some facts are not being stated by the lamestream media, but are availiable if you look.
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55852 is a reply to message #55847 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 22:14 |
 |
E. E. Nalley
Messages: 603
Registered: July 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA |
|
|
|
Isodecan, the short answer to your somewhat badly phrased question is, no, there are no laws in the Whateley Universe that let you go killing other people and get away with it.
Now, a bit of clarification on the concept of 'Stand your ground' law. The only thing the so-called 'Stand your ground' law did was remove the requirement to retreat before a civilian employed deadly force in self defense in any place he had a legal right to be.
Or, put it like this:
Citizen A is walking down a public street. For the purpose of this scenario Citizen A has purchased a handgun and has the Florida Concealed Carry permit thus legally has his handgun with him. He arrives at a street corner and is accosted by Gang Members 1 and 2.
Gang Members 1 and 2 are armed with a hand gun and a butcher's knife respectively. Gang Member 2, while brandishing the knife demands Citizen A's wallet, cellphone and wedding band or he will "gut you like a fish."
In legal terms Citizen A is now in fear of his life. A credible threat against his person has been uttered and there is evidence to believe that threat to his life will be carried out. Before the 'Stand your ground' law, Citizen A was required to attempt to flee (retreat) before he could defend himself with his handgun. The 'Stand your ground' law removed that requirement, allowing him to draw and present the weapon. Whereupon (as is the outcome of most self defense encounters, roughly 1.9 million per year through out the 50 States ) Gang Members 1 and 2 take to their heels and flee.
That's it. It's not a magic 'somebody is messing with my Grand Torino, time to blow his ass away' law.
Now, before a flame war starts let me just remind everyone this is NOT the place to debate the innocence of guilt or Zimmerman or Martin. Those desiring to do so will find ample places around the net for that purpose.
Thank you and we now return you to your regularly scheduled Whateley Universe Question and Answer Forum.
Be a dreamer who DOES, not a dreamer who dreams!
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55854 is a reply to message #55852 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 23:06 |
amratner
Messages: 271
Registered: January 2012
Location: NH, US |
|
|
|
| E. E. Nalley wrote on Sat, 24 March 2012 22:14 | Isodecan, the short answer to your somewhat badly phrased question is, no, there are no laws in the Whateley Universe that let you go killing other people and get away with it.
Now, a bit of clarification on the concept of 'Stand your ground' law. The only thing the so-called 'Stand your ground' law did was remove the requirement to retreat before a civilian employed deadly force in self defense in any place he had a legal right to be.
Or, put it like this:
Citizen A is walking down a public street. For the purpose of this scenario Citizen A has purchased a handgun and has the Florida Concealed Carry permit thus legally has his handgun with him. He arrives at a street corner and is accosted by Gang Members 1 and 2.
Gang Members 1 and 2 are armed with a hand gun and a butcher's knife respectively. Gang Member 2, while brandishing the knife demands Citizen A's wallet, cellphone and wedding band or he will "gut you like a fish."
In legal terms Citizen A is now in fear of his life. A credible threat against his person has been uttered and there is evidence to believe that threat to his life will be carried out. Before the 'Stand your ground' law, Citizen A was required to attempt to flee (retreat) before he could defend himself with his handgun. The 'Stand your ground' law removed that requirement, allowing him to draw and present the weapon. Whereupon (as is the outcome of most self defense encounters, roughly 1.9 million per year through out the 50 States ) Gang Members 1 and 2 take to their heels and flee.
That's it. It's not a magic 'somebody is messing with my Grand Torino, time to blow his ass away' law.
Now, before a flame war starts let me just remind everyone this is NOT the place to debate the innocence of guilt or Zimmerman or Martin. Those desiring to do so will find ample places around the net for that purpose.
Thank you and we now return you to your regularly scheduled Whateley Universe Question and Answer Forum.
|
Without trying to get into flaming, I would assume that federal law in Whately has the same provision as in our world:
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
|
|
| | |
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55860 is a reply to message #55839 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 23:39 |
curiousreader
Messages: 329
Registered: May 2011
Location: Southern United States |
|
|
|
Sorry but this is slightly off topic relating to Diana's comment.
If a law enforcement officer is a telepath or Empath can they submit their readings or feelings about a case into evidence of does it still not count? Or would this be seen as abuse of powers?
[Updated on: Sat, 24 March 2012 23:40]
Nothing is impossible, it's just that somethings are less likely then others. -Author Unknown
|
|
| |
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55862 is a reply to message #55861 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 23:51 |
|
E. E. Nalley
Messages: 603
Registered: July 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA |
|
|
|
That would make for an interesting conundrum of case law. Posit, the officer is required to act on definable probable cause that a crime has or will take place. However, the officer who is a telepath knows that his power is not admissible as evidence and therefor cannot be probable cause.
Now granted, how many times a day do we think things that, if said out loud in the tone of voice we were thinking them would a LEO consider that probable cause or spontaneous utterance and arrest us? It is interesting to consider. I'd have to fall on the side of the 4th Amendment and state that the officer cannot act on anything he learns in telepathy, but he could state that he followed someone based on his years of experience or 'gut' that the individual in question might be involved in criminal activity and once the perp steps over the line from thinking to doing, we have a cop when you need one. Still, it'd be a very fine line for the officer.
Be a dreamer who DOES, not a dreamer who dreams!
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55863 is a reply to message #55854 ] |
Sat, 24 March 2012 23:58 |
|
E. E. Nalley
Messages: 603
Registered: July 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA |
|
|
|
| amratner wrote on Sat, 24 March 2012 23:06 |
Without trying to get into flaming, I would assume that federal law in Whately has the same provision as in our world:
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
|
Ah, but amratner, Federal case law only applies to the Federal Courts. There are a number of States and Commonwealths (Massachusetts, New York being the two I can call up off the top of my head) that place an obligation to retreat on the citizen before he or she may use deadly force. And Florida was such a state, until the statue was amended. One of the things that made Florida's law so controversial was that if the shooting was considered self defense, the state extended an immunity to wrongful death lawsuits to the shooter to protect him from being sued by the family of his attacker.
Be a dreamer who DOES, not a dreamer who dreams!
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55881 is a reply to message #55863 ] |
Sun, 25 March 2012 07:41 |
amratner
Messages: 271
Registered: January 2012
Location: NH, US |
|
|
|
| E. E. Nalley wrote on Sat, 24 March 2012 23:58 |
Ah, but amratner, Federal case law only applies to the Federal Courts. There are a number of States and Commonwealths (Massachusetts, New York being the two I can call up off the top of my head) that place an obligation to retreat on the citizen before he or she may use deadly force. And Florida was such a state, until the statue was amended. One of the things that made Florida's law so controversial was that if the shooting was considered self defense, the state extended an immunity to wrongful death lawsuits to the shooter to protect him from being sued by the family of his attacker.
|
All true.
But there are also a number of states that do not have the obligation to retreat.
And the number is increasing.
Personally, I agree with Judge Jaggard:
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:
"The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm."
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55932 is a reply to message #55862 ] |
Sun, 25 March 2012 18:47 |
 |
Cockle
Messages: 646
Registered: July 2011
Location: UK |
|
|
|
| E. E. Nalley wrote on Sun, 25 March 2012 04:51 | That would make for an interesting conundrum of case law. Posit, the officer is required to act on definable probable cause that a crime has or will take place. However, the officer who is a telepath knows that his power is not admissible as evidence and therefor cannot be probable cause.
Now granted, how many times a day do we think things that, if said out loud in the tone of voice we were thinking them would a LEO consider that probable cause or spontaneous utterance and arrest us? It is interesting to consider. I'd have to fall on the side of the 4th Amendment and state that the officer cannot act on anything he learns in telepathy, but he could state that he followed someone based on his years of experience or 'gut' that the individual in question might be involved in criminal activity and once the perp steps over the line from thinking to doing, we have a cop when you need one. Still, it'd be a very fine line for the officer.
|
I'd think that it would be more like the situation here in the UK with 'phone taps. Something that the police can use for intelligence - with appropriate safeguards - but not admissible as evidence in court.
Now presumably the psi-cop wouldn't routinely be reading the minds of everybody about them. This might mean that they couldn't legally read someone's mind even if they thought they had grounds for suspicion. Just like an ordinary cop couldn't decide on the spur of the moment to bug someone's car. So any action taken on the basis of deliberate mind reading might well be deemed illegal.
Perhaps someone with less controlled empathic abilities might have more flexibility. If they couldn't turn it off, then would it be OK to act if they picked up emotions suggesting impending violence? Of course, only that officer would know, which is the main reason such evidence would be usable in court: there's no practical way of verifying it.
Superpowers introduce loads of possible legal issues just in the area of surveillance. If you can't bug someone, can you spider them? Get Arachne to have her friends listen in on them. Or spy on them with your X-Ray vision, or clairvoyance? Use magic? I assume there'd have to be a fairly general law in place, to cover any form of covert surveillance without specifying any of them.
|
|
|
| Re: Stand Your Ground [message #55943 is a reply to message #55839 ] |
Sun, 25 March 2012 20:46 |
 |
ShinZed
Messages: 155
Registered: May 2011
Location: UK |
|
|
|
Mindbird has mentioned a psi ethical code before, where psi's aren't allowed to read peoples thoughts without permission. That goes hand in hand with psi evidence not being admissable in court.
Empathic skills such as emotion sensing are a bit more blurry, especially since people who have those sometimes can't turn them off.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 22 04:28:16 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02249 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
