Stand Your Ground working for defendants - The Explorer: Northwest Chatter

Stand Your Ground working for defendants

Welcome to the discussion.

7 comments:

  • jerinaz posted at 9:52 am on Fri, Apr 18, 2014.

    jerinaz Posts: 2

    Hey Miguel if you read any of Chris floral articles you would know that this definitely not a stand your ground case she nails it on the head my son's car was in front of his my son had no gun David mota had 3 in the car he was a marine taught to shoot to kill he could have driven away called 911 no he didn't and these jurors weren't apparently listening we need to change this law or ppl are going to kill because they can

     
  • John Flanagan posted at 12:54 pm on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    John Flanagan Posts: 326

    "A Citizen"

    I fully realize everyone has their own opinions, and although I am passionate about various issues, I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech and viewpoint expression. I believe political correctness is a form of oppression used as a club by some in our culture in order to silence dissent and intimidate others from expressing their views. I respect your right to disagree with me and anyone else. It is the American way.

     
  • A Citizen posted at 11:15 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    A Citizen Posts: 11

    John -

    I have never before agreed with one of your comments, but I couldn't be more supportive of what you said here. If you and I can end up on the same page regarding "Stand Your Ground" laws, I cannot imagine there is a majority in our state that supports it in its existing form. Let's hope the legislature realizes this sooner than later.

     
  • A Citizen posted at 11:11 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    A Citizen Posts: 11

    Miguel -

    Clearly, you are forgetting that in our country, one is "innocent until proven guilty." The determination is not in the hands of either the police or the DA. If they decide to even bring a case, the determination is with the jury and/or the judge. That is how the legal system works. Moreover, in order to get a guilty verdict in such a case, the DA would have to bring forth enough evidence (eye witnesses, for example) to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the individual under attack was not retreating.

    You are using scare tactics. I wonder why.

     
  • Miguel Gonzalez posted at 5:49 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    Miguel Gonzalez Posts: 2

    Many people that are in favor of Duty to Retreat, do so under the misconception that it is the individual under attack the one that gets to legally determine if he retreated enough before being forced to defend himself....and they would be terribly wrong.
    The determination if a person retreated enough is in the hands of either the police or the district attorney, people who were not present at the events and who only have your word (You, the suspect and let me repeat the word SUSPECT) and possibly some evidence that is not a clear cut as in the CSI TV series.
    In a perfect world, police or DA would understand that a law abiding citizen, without any record, family person, church goer, etc. would be very unlikely to be the one responsible for the altercation. However, many prosecutors in many states have a great desire to make a name for themselves and get re-elected, so they go after unfortunate people to beef up their conviction record and appear butch to the voters. DAs forget that their duty is to seek Justice and not to win cases, but apparently that is not the case anymore.
    That is why we need laws like SYG.

     
  • Miguel Gonzalez posted at 5:37 am on Thu, Apr 17, 2014.

    Miguel Gonzalez Posts: 2

    "Starting with Florida in 2005, Stand Your Ground laws were passed by 12 states altogether, including Arizona. "

    That is factually wrong. Stand Your Ground goes back as a well established law to 1895 via a Supreme Court decision (Beard v. United States – 158 U.S. 550) and then ratified in 1921 with Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335.

    "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife"

     
  • John Flanagan posted at 10:53 am on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    John Flanagan Posts: 326

    I agree with you. The use of deadly physical force in defense obligates one to use rational measures first, retreating when possible, to avoid pulling the trigger automatically. The exception is usually at night, in your home, when an intruder breaks into the house. Then you can shoot and there is no obligation to retreat. Even in a burglary situation, if an intruder is running away, and not a threat, you cannot just shoot them in the back. That would get you into jail. In the case of Mr Mota, it appears he was not justified in killing the other driver, and he knows it. Stand your ground laws should specify when one can use physical force, and when it is not justified.

     

Kino College

Kino CollegeEnroll today: http://www.kinocollege.com/

MOS: Storms and Floods

We asked the community about the coming floods and storms.

MOS: Back To School

We asked the community about the new school semester starting.

More Featured Videos
Spacer4px

Follow us on Facebook