Could "stand your ground" laws be

[safeinOhio]

a violation of the XIV Amendment?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If Zimmerman skates, I'd say so.

[Thinkingabout]

1. This a sad state of affairs

Too much hype and too many guns are in the hands of out of control owners. I am involved with neighborhood watch but I leave the chase to the professionals. It does not sound if he yelled halt so without due process this young man has lost his life. If this goes without the killer getting conviction then it will be a license to kill.

[rrneck]

2. Zimmerman was not acting as a representative of the state. nt

[Skittles]

3. no, he acted as a representative of paranoid gun nuts

[rrneck]

34. Oh, horseshit.

Did you actually enjoy typing that? I mean, was it somehow gratifying to think you were striking a blow for the betterment of society by saying something so patently self serving and inane? How many people who read it could legitimately feel that anything was served by exposure to it beyond some primal hypothalamic grunt of emotional solidarity with an understanding of partisan politics with no more intellectual heft than a fucking bumper sticker. Is that all you have to do all day; dive into some internet forum and post juvenile bullshit like that and then run like hell?

You should be commended on a sense of self satisfaction so easily obtained.

[eqfan592]

44. Damn man, well said! Best reply to that sort of post I've EVER seen!! (nt)

[Skittles]

48. LOL

you are sooooooo easily impressed

[Skittles]

48. dup

[Skittles]

50. .

[Skittles]

47. I stand by what I said

ABSOLUTELY

[rrneck]

54. For you to stand by it in any meaningful way

you would need to produce some evidence that it was true. You did not. Nor can you.

Of course, in your case, you aren't standing by the veracity of your claim in relation to the real world, only it's veracity as it relates to your feelings. You FEEL a particular way about something and that, for some reason, should mean anything to anyone else. Your FEELINGS are paramount to you and inflicting them on others for no reason other than emoting for your own pleasure was the objective of the post. You fail to realize that your precious FEELINGS don't mean shit when you use them to punish others for your own pleasure. I certainly don't give a flying fuck about your FEELINGS when you vomit them in my direction since you seem incapable of showing anything but contempt with them. I am, in fact, moved more to pity than to fear every time I interact with you.

Now put your sippy cup in the sink, it's time for your nap.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. "...moved more to pity than to fear every time..."

A rather spot-on characterization.

[Skittles]

57. LOL

thou doth protest too much

[rrneck]

60. They're called complete sentences.

You obviously don't have time to use them in your panicked flight to umbrage.

[safeinOhio]

5. "No state shall make or enforce any law"

He certainly invoked a law passed by a state to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm writing the American Civil Liberties Union to find out.

[X_Digger]

13. 'No state..'

When an individual deprives another individual of life, liberty, or property, we come back to the criminal code- we charge them with murder, kidnapping, or robbery/theft.

[safeinOhio]

27. We need a

bonafide constitutional lawyer to settle this.

[X_Digger]

30. Search westlaw..

In the 220 years since the passage of the fifth amendment or the 140 since the passage of the fourteenth, nobody has filed such a case.

Our criminal code has penalties for depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property.

[rrneck]

35. I don't think he invoked any law passed by any state.

If he is charged and tried we will find out if he legitimately invoked a law. If not, we will know where he will be sleeping and what he will be eating for a very long time.

His neighborhood watch manual didn't allow for such behaivor, nor does Florida statute.

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Zimmerman didn't necessarily have any right to be on anyone's private property apprehending anyone without reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause. He was trespassing in somebody else's back yard. That's illegal. He simply is not a duly appointed agent of the state and had no right to act in that capacity. He is just a moron with delusions of grandeur and will probably spend the rest of his life in prison for his foolishness.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Sounds like you've completed your diagnosis, Doc.

He is just a moron with delusions of grandeur and will probably spend the rest of his life in prison for his foolishness.

Really, makes one wonder why he hasn't been arrested yet.

Interesting that you dismiss Skittles comment that he might be a "paranoid gun nut", when his actions point very much in that direction. "Moron" is a euphemism for "retarded", which could serve as a legal defense, if he is ever charged. Maybe he is color blind too. You know how those color blind morons can be so "foolish". Yeah, we'll just put it down to "foolishness".

Records show Zimmerman, 28, called the cops 46 times between January 2011 and Feb. 26.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-19/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-george-zimmerman-911-20120319_1_neighborhood-county-sheriff-s-office-report

No indication of paranoia there, Doc. I don't know if he was a gun nut, but that was the tool he chose to deal with a stranger who "didn't belong in his neighborhood".

[rrneck]

43. Actually

I dismissed Skittles insipid drivel because she asserted that, "he acted as a representative of paranoid gun nuts", whether he is a paranoid gun nut or not was not discussed.

The use of the term "moron" in this context was an insult, not a diagnosis, as was the reference to "delusions of grandeur".

If the rest of the terminology wasn't to your liking, feel free to replace it with your own. These insipid semantic distinctions do nothing to illuminate the problem but contribute a great deal to contribute to the paralyzing boredom that oozes from much of this site these days.

[krispos42]

38. Then all self-defense laws are moot.

You cannot kill in self-defense, period, because legally allowing a person to use lethal force to deprive an attacker of life, liberty or property is illegal.

Hmmm.

[gejohnston]

40. but by banning self defense

you are also depriving the victim of life, liberty or property

[krispos42]

46. Hmmmmm....

... a point. A distinct point.

[petronius]

4. Only if you think that self-defense laws in general are violations

Florida's SYG law does not change the requirement that a person using deadly force in self-defense must be in reasonable fear for his own life - and that's the question that matters in this case, not whether or not he could/should have retreated...

[safeinOhio]

6. No, not at all.

However, these laws leave a path for anyone to CLAIM self defense and to go beyond the use of equal force. I find nothing wrong with the duty to retreat, if possible, before lethal force is used. Just too many holes in the law as shown by this case and others.

IF you hit me, I'll hit you back. If you pull a gun, I'll disarm you or shoot you. That makes sense. Having an unknown object or losing a fist fight does not.

[petronius]

8. But that exact same path was always there, whether the law is 'stand your ground'

or 'duty to retreat.' A reasonable justification for using force has to be shown before SYG becomes relevant. And that's the point where this topic is still at...

[gejohnston]

11. the problem I have with duty to retreat

is as I explained on Thom Hartmann's forum.

On the show, Thom used the example of defending yourself from a violent car jacker under the old law. He was correct in that you would have to demostrate that your life was threatened. What he did not mention was:

you, victim of the car jacking, would be arrested and charged with murder. If the DA decides not to go to trial because it is a clear case self defense, or decides to go to trial (whatever reason) and you are aquitted, your problems are not over. But you are not getting off because of "duty to retreat" which says you should have retreat (often putting you in more danger) and given up your car. In the real world, of Thom's example you go to jail for being a crime victim. Even if it is a clear case of self defense and even if your attackers have extensive felony records, the attacker's family can still sue you for wrongful death. In the end, you are not only a victim of a crime, you are deep in debt due to legal fees and a possible civil jugement even though you did nothing wrong. How is that just? Think that would not happen? I'm old enough to remember a high profile shooting by Bernhard Goetz. All of that happened to him plus the media falsely accusing him and the NY jury of racism even though this was a year after Austin Weeks, an African American subway worker, shot and killed one of two white attackers. The grand jury did not even push the illegal gun charge.

There was a case in Tampa about six or seven months ago where a kid (middle school, IIRC) stabbed a bully to death. The facts of the case was this:
It was a public street
Several bullying complaints were filed with the school, all well documented
bully and several of his friends surrounded the killer and attacked him
victim stabbed bully to death.
Bully's parents were shocked SHOCKED that their innocent child (our boy would never bully or harm anyone, that nerd was just making shit up.) would be struck down in his youth and demanded justice from the state and the civil system. Judge said self defense, bully's parents whined to the media that their little angel was the victim.
Call me jaded, but Zimmerman is the exception, not the rule.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. I don't think mere CLAIMS are going to be sufficient, nor should they be.

However, these laws leave a path for anyone to CLAIM self defense and to go beyond the use of equal force.

I don't think anyone, even Zimmerman, is going to be able to just "claim" self-defense and get away with murder, nor should they.

You have to demonstrate that you could reasonably fear for your safety.

[safeinOhio]

21. Apparently not

If no stink had been raised Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was working just great for him.
The proof has been put on the prosecution by this law and taken away from the shooter. Before this law it was the defendants job to prove self-defense. This law has put it on the prosecution, that's the problem with the law.

[gejohnston]

32. Is the problem the law or Sanford PD?

Personally, I agree with the guy who drafted and introduced the law. The problem is Sanford PD's stupidity and/or racism.

[PavePusher]

37. "Before this law it was the defendants job to prove self-defense."

Exactly the problem. It should be the burden of the state to prove criminality. "Innocent until proven guilty". It's a long-standing tenant of the U.S. legal system, and should be stronger than it currently is.

[Oneka]

41. "This law put it on the prosecution"

"that's the problem with the law."

I'm assuming you mean that the prosecution is now forced to actually prove guilt rather then the victim being forced to admit to committing a crime, then asking for mercy, in the form of, "state sanctioned justification" for the act of self defense.

"That" is not a problem, at all.

Forcing the state to prove guilt is never a problem, if guilt exists, the state should no problem finding it and proving it in a court of law. This has been a tenet of law in the USA for over two centuries, except in cases of self defense, this law in Florida addresses this exception very well.

[krispos42]

39. The court always had and always will leave a path for anyone to claim self-defense.

The court and the appeals process ARE the path.


The issue is a REASONABLE claim of self-defense. "He needed killin'" isn't reasonable, no matter how many times it's been presented in a court of law.

[spin]

7. How am I abridging the privileges or immunities of any citizen ...

if he decides to attack me with a knife or a gun? Should I be required to attempt to retreat in such a situation? While this might be a good option in many situations, it might be a poor decision in others.

For example I am 65 years old and a candidate for a hip replacement. I also suffer from degenerative disk disease. Retreating or running from a much younger and more physically fit attacker is not an option. At the best I can stumble backward or turn my back and limp away. My best chance is to stand my ground and use my legally concealed weapon for my defense. I may be handicapped, but I can still shoot accurately.

What should a woman who weighs 100 pounds and is 5' 2" do when attacked by a much larger male who intends to rape her? Run away in high heels and a tight skirt? I personally have no idea how hard this would be but I can guess that her chances of escaping are slim. She might be far better off to stand her ground and use her concealed weapon to stop the attack.

If I have damn good reason to believe that a person intends to put me in a hospital or six feet under, I should be able to defend myself against his attack. I should have the option of using non-lethal force if I feel it would be effective and lethal force if I feel I have no other choice.

However I also feel that if I do stand my ground and shoot another person the situation requires a thorough investigation by the authorities and if no realistic reason is found to justify my actions, I should be arrested and prosecuted. My fate should be decided by a jury.

No citizen has the right to attack me with the intention of severely injuring or killing me! I have the right to defend myself in such a situation. I also have no right to attack another person and if I start an argument or refuse to break off a confrontation before it escalates to violence, I should not be able to claim self defense.

In my opinion if I was involved in a situation that involved my questionable use of lethal force because I state that I feared for my life, the authorities should ask this question, " Would a reasonable man standing in my shoes do the same?" If not I should face a jury and let them answer the same question.

[rbixby]

9. I'd be willing to be you'd be okay under normal self defense law

This 'stand your ground' thing is just opening the door to many, many more cases like this one though. You're definitely right to say that a jury should decide if it was indeed self defense though, there needs to be due process.

[safeinOhio]

10. That is what I see the problem as

I agree, in your case or mine, also old, the old law would cover us, duty to retreat, when possible.
This case was screwed up because of the SYG law and used as an excuse not to investigate. There are others just as bad where the person was shot in the back.

Too many problems with this law, where I can see no reason not to rely on the duty to retreat law. It covers everything you have said with out the loop holes to get away with murder.

[gejohnston]

14. is there a third alternative?

perhaps a hybrid of the two? Written as a clear and present danger required to use deadly force, and immunity from civil suits if shown to be self defense.

[safeinOhio]

20. I'm fine with the

Written as a clear and present danger required to use deadly force, however I'm against the immunity part. The VII Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[gejohnston]

23. so the family of a felon should be able

to cash in off of the the victim even when it is a clear case of self defense? Sorry, that is immoral.

[safeinOhio]

25. If it is a clear case of self defense

I trust a jury of peers to decide per the laws of this country. It is just as immoral to deny a person a day in court. If you wish to make the loser pay lawyer and court fines, that is ok with me.
So you think Zimmerman should be free of any civil fine by the victims family?

[gejohnston]

28. civil courts have very low

standard of proof. There have been cases that were clearly self defense, acquitted by a jury, and the families of felons being successful in civil court. There was a case in NYC in the 1980s where the civil suit was won by false claims of "shooting them because they were brown."
In cases like this, not only should it be loser pays, but the (shot person's) criminal record, including arrests without convictions, should be admissible.

If the conventional wisdom turns out to be the truth, and Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter or murder, then the victim's family should sue the shit out of him.

In short:
self defense proven to criminal jury=no civil suit should be allowed.
racist asshole looking to get away with murder=turn the lawyers loose.

[safeinOhio]

31. Those case of juries awarding money

to felons is about as rare as CCW holders committing felonies.

You don't think OJ should have been sued in civil court? If Zimmerman gets of on a technicality you don't think a civil trail would be alright?

[gejohnston]

36. My honest opinion of OJ is

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I think he did it but:
As a white guy from Hooterville, I saw the reasonable doubt and would have voted the same way. If I saw it, I know the city folks on the jury (who either has experienced or knew someone who did) racist cops could come to no other conclusion. That is before, IIRC, you get to LAPD crime lab being fucked up, and a racist cop driving around town with a blood vial.

OJ did not claim self defense, and he avoided paying anyway because they can't touch his NFL pension. No one would hire him, so can't get those wages. I think Nichole's family wasted their time. I don't see Zimmerman sliding out of this.
Should Sanford PD get reamed and clean house, absolutely.
I'm not a big fan of calling the BoRs "technicalities." That is so, 1970s conservative cop show.

[safeinOhio]

15. Here are some of the problems from Florida Prosecutors

McClatchy Newspapers reports that "legal experts say Zimmerman, if arrested, would probably be charged with manslaughter and not murder -- and would have a strong defense under Florida's law, with a judge needing to decide first whether he is immune from prosecution." As Mother Jones points out, Florida courts have found that under that statute, "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable" while "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense."
Florida Prosecuting Attorneys
"Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution."
"Let's say your teenage son gets into a fight at school and a bunch of kids winds up yelling at your front door that night... You think, 'Uh-oh, we're being threatened.' Is that a valid defense? I don't know."

"It is an abomination... The ultimate intent might be good, but in practice, people take the opportunity to shoot first and say later they had a justification. It almost gives them a free pass to shoot."


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203200009

at best the laws are poorly written.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. You hit the problem right on the head.

This case was screwed up because of the SYG law and used as an excuse not to investigate.

The case is screw up because SYG was used as an excuse not to investigate.

It's probably going to come out that Zimmerman effectively stalked Martin and Martin, fearing for his life, pushed Zimmerman away or otherwise physically tried to get away from Zimmerman, which started a fight.

Zimmerman was clearly looking for a fight, even if he didn't physically start it, and even if he was getting his ass handed to him after he found it.

[safeinOhio]

19. The poorly way this law is written

allows for it.

[X_Digger]

12. *sigh* not this shit again..

The fifth and fourteenth amendments apply as restrictions on the state.

Due process is between the state and an individual.

There is no criminal code violation for 'violating someone's due process rights'.

[safeinOhio]

17. "No state shall make or enforce any law "

in this case to enforce this state law would violate someone's due process rights. Therefore it would be illegal to enforce it.

[X_Digger]

22. No state..

The state (or by extension the law) did not violate someone's due process rights.

*sigh*

[safeinOhio]

24. To enforce this

state law would.

[X_Digger]

26. The state, or enforcement of this law, did not deprive Martin of life.

Please, pick up a con law textbook.

Hell, even better.. start here.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=22242

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. That would be...

...No.

It was Zimmerman who did the depriving here. The law broken by him pertains to murder.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. ^^^this^^^

and that is all.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Absolutely

Check out this article that I saw in USA TODAY

Florida case reignites debate over stand-your-ground laws
http://usat.ly/GIF7wg

To view the story, click the link or paste it into your browser.

[Kennah]

51. Read 776.041 Use of force by aggressor

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[jeepnstein]

52. This is the heart of it.

I have no idea why Zimmerman hasn't been charged, yet. Perhaps they're going to a Grand Jury? If they are they have a strange way of showing it. The prosecution will be severely botched from the very beginning thanks to the local PD. It is obvious that Zimmerman sought and and maintained contact with the kid. What remains to be seen is if the kid was indeed a threat to Zimmerman, which I find unlikely. What I have seen so far indicates to me that Zimmerman was trying to make some kind of half-assed citizens arrest and got in way over his head. Too bad, so sad, go to jail and don't collect the $200.

I'm waiting for the smoke to clear a little bit and for a little background on both parties to emerge. Has Zimmerman had complaints about his "neighborhood watch" program before? Had the deceased ever been a violent threat in the past? Was there any trend of crime in the neighborhood that turned a block watch program into a vigilance committee? What was the relationship between the Neighborhood Watch and the local PD? Personally, I think Zimmerman screwed up and is probably on the hook for some flavor of a murder charge.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact the overwhelming bulk of gun owners in the U.S. didn't shoot anyone. It is Zimmerman's legal problem now. And it is the family of the deceased who is suffering the most through all of this. Zimmerman pulled the trigger and he owns the bullet.

[jpak]

53. Get a clue - II trumps XIV in racist GOP shoot 'em up society

yup

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. Maybe it's a power...

...sprayer you're using. It's painting far to fast and wide to be a brush.

[Skittles]

58. aw aren't you clever

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. Thanks :)

Love your candy, btw.