As far as loss of liberty goes, the one who obliges his duty to retreat won't suffer as much as the one who catalyzed the situation, since that person would be arrested and charged for terroristic threat, assault, or some other crime. It's not uncommon or surprising that a criminal would impinge on the liberties of others, but with those people put in jail as they offend we're not exactly facing an epidemic because of a duty to retreat.
FYI the link appears to be down but to address the substance of what you quoted: [rquoter]Under a duty to retreat, D must leave V’s presence, or else if he stays he will be subject to V’s potentially deadly attack (or at least seriously injurious attack) without any legal right to use potentially deadly force in self-defense. The law thus ends up supporting V’s thuggery, not with the specific purpose of doing so but with that effect: If V credibly tells D “go away or I’ll kill you,” D must flee (if he can do so with safety, which usually means that he’s fleeing a knife or an unarmed attack rather than a gun). Even if V just says “I’ll kill you,” D must flee; that might not play as much into V’s hands (if V’s goal is really to kill D and not just chase him away), but it will still help V exercise unresisted power over D.[/rquoter] A duty to retreat doesn't support thuggery because as JV noted the one who starts the thuggery is going to be the one that will be held responsible. If it supported thuggery then who started the situation wouldn't matter. Also as I have noted under retreat laws situations can be considered where retreat is impossible. The basic problem that I see with the analysis is that it falls back to the idea that Stand Your Ground is there to punish thugs by saying that do gooders can hold their ground and fight them if need be. The problem though with that is that the purpose of retreat isn't a matter of letting thuggery go unpunished but a matter of the safety of the do gooder This type of reasoning played a role in the Martin case. Zimmerman clearly was upset about criminals getting away and decided to pursue Martin to make sure, if he was a criminal, he wouldn't get away. If he had just considered his duty fulfilled by informing the police all of this might've been avoided. Instead he feels needs to follow this suspicious person. He has the right to and likely fully believes in that right but that doesn't mean its a good idea. What if Martin really was a criminal and what if Martin was armed? Zimmerman might be the one dead. Another issue about this idea of the restriction of liberty by having to retreat from danger is that this doesn't just apply to self-defense but to other dangerous situations. Eight states in the US now have policies that will charge for rescues of hikers and skiers who put themselves into potentially dangerous back country situations and have to be rescued. While this isn't laws saying they have to leave if the situation becomes dangerous the affect is the same. You are liable if you choose to be in a potentially dangerous situation. A duty to retreat essentially mandates you to extricate yourself from a dangerous situation.
The link was censored by Clutch. Essentially you are giving the thugs a veto that allows the thugs to determine where someone can be and where they can't. Presumably that approach could be used to keep blacks out of "white" neighborhoods.
The link works but it says "page not found" That would be presuming a lawless society or one where police are completely ineffective.
No, it assumes a society where the police cannot be everywhere at once. Here's a scenario: Suppose a person with a concealed gun permit is near a door in a situation where a gunman is threatening not only him, but others as well. Should he be required to retreat and leave the others to an unknown fate?
A lot of well-presented arguments in here. Not that I agree with all of them, to be sure, but it's stayed relatively civil. So I'll just keep reading and won't post (oops) about how more than a few people have gone free in Florida, using this law as a pretext, even in crimes-of-passion cases. Oddly enough, there's a law in Florida: if you point a gun at someone (without firing) and are convicted, you can likely wind up in jail. With stand your ground, you can kill someone with that gun and walk free: Hey, man, I stood my ground. Wish I had last week's Time magazine article, it went over this pretty well. Maybe someone already quoted it in the thread?
Kinda like how Zimmerman used his thuggery to keep blacks out of his neighborhood, and Martin stood his ground instead of retreating (as his girlfriend advised), so that his liberty to walk on a public street would not be curtailed by the intimidation tactics of a thug like Zimmerman? Except that standing his ground didn't work out too well for Martin - he stood his ground and was killed for it.
That is a very interesting read Rhad. Just on the face of it it sounds like McNeil's claim of self-defense is much stronger than Zimmerman's since he had seen Epps draw the knife earlier, had fired a warning shot that didn't deter Epps, was on his own property, and standing his ground. Obviously the big issue here is how much race played in this but leaving aside race for a moment if I can play the prosecutor's role the argument might be that since the knife wasn't drawn and it's unlikely that Epps would keep an open knife in his pocket that he didn't represent a threat. The problem with self-defense laws is that the "reasonable person" standard isn't what the person who feels he is under attack but what the jury believes or can be convinced to believe by counsel.
Agreed. The DA should have never pressed charges, but, after that, the jury dropped the ball. Regardless, it's just depressing as hell. What a stupid, stupid law.
Rhad, interesting story by salon. A person that continues to advance on a homeowner on his own property, even after a warning shot had been fired to the ground. They should have let him go. It's no surprise that the NRA won't stand up for McNeil in the stand your ground law. Maybe McNeil get a governor's pardon. It's unlikely though.
Another interesting case of "standing your ground" not being applied all that consistently. EDIT: Another link regarding this story. The story is a bit more convoluted than what is written above, but it's still a rather large breech of justice.
Depends on whose side of the witness testimony (the sons) supported. If they say she went off on Gray, he didn't reataliate and then she ran to get a gun to threaten him with then she goes up the river. What is interesting is that you didn't post the other side of the story which is what it appears the court believed over hers.
Also, it could be that the court likely said, had she been in fear enough to stand her ground, she would have shot to kill. The fact that she didn't damages her claim of being in fear of her life.
In that case, I have a bigger problem with mandatory setencing than stand your ground. Man, legislators come up with a lot of dumb laws.
That strikes me as very troubling reason. Most self-defense laws, including FL's, consider proportionality to the threat, for example you can't shoot someone who shoves you. Under the reasoning you present though that throws proportionality out the window and essentially says that if you act in self-defense it is only justified if you kill the person. I haven't followed this case closely enough but I strongly doubt that was the reason for her conviction.
I'm bumping this thread because of the Zimmerman verdict. As I said in the Trayvon Martin thread I think this verdict sets a dangerous precedent and that this is a bad law. While Zimmerman's defense team didn't solely focus on the Stand Your Ground law for their defense it was part of the defense and am guessing it played a part in the jury's deliberations.
