Posted on 07/18/2013 6:29:36 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
As the liberal Miami media works hand in hand with Democrats and race card players and gun grabbers, they are employing a phrase in their effort to get STAND YOUR GROUND laws repealed....
That phrase is "responsibility to retreat"... They are insisting that the law be amended to make it mandatory for victims of crime to run away.
First of all, isn't that ALREADY part of the law--to seek safety when possible? Second, if we are to believe the leftards, isn't that what Trayvon DIDN'T do?
Anyway, I think it is disgusting to hear anyone tell me I have to run away when I am attacked.
Is anyone else hearing the media spew this crap?
Do you mean ‘Black Panther’? :)
Within the black community there is a desire to end self-defense entirely because they are seeing more and more of their young thugs cut down by law-abiding citizens who are defending themselves. You’d think the response would be to teach their young men not to be thugs, but the sense of entitlement is so great that this isn’t happening.
Holder calls it a “Duty to retreat”.
I’m trying to find it in the constitution but so far no luck.
And the war on women continues.
If you are being raped, don’t fight, submit. If you are cornered and cannot run, just submit and enjoy it?
Freaking disgusting cowards. Oh, I might get hurt. To bad being in the military is no longer mandatory. These idjits need a spine infusion!
Gunner
> The civil rights suit will proceed without any evidence because it will: (1) come about next year to distract at an opportune time during the mid-term elections, and (2) it keeps racial tension boiling.
0 - setting racial relationships back 75 years and he’s half white. The black people once again manipulated by a half Caucasian and don’t even realize it...
“First of all, isn’t that ALREADY part of the law—to seek safety when possible?”
Not in Texas, at least as far as the “castle doctrine” statute reads: you have no duty to retreat - what part of “stand your ground” includes “give ground until you can’t anymore”? That’s the very reason these new, “you have a right to defend yourself” statutes were passed to begin with.
I’d like to make a few points that generally get lost in the shouting.
The “traditional” common law of England, transferred to the USA as the basis of our legal system in every state but LA, imposes a duty to retreat on those who claim self-defense. This, not illogically, grew up in the Middle Ages where most men went armed and the murder rate was MUCH higher than today. If two men got into a fight, and neither backed down and one died, the survivor could not claim self-defense as a justification. He would likely be convicted of something less than 1st degree, but he couldn’t just walk.
In something like 2/3 of US states, this common law principle has been modified with one or another variant of SYG.
Unfortunately, IMO, the determination whether a killing is justified and therefore no charges will be filed, which is the essence of SYG, is left up to cops and prosecutors. IOW, political officials. And the case remains open, subject to future politicians reaching a different decision about the case and deciding to prosecute.
I think we should update the law to incorporate something akin to the old common law coroner’s inquest for every killing. Then a legal decision can be reached that the killing was in self-defense, and future prosecution is barred. Unless, I assume, significant new evidence to the contrary turns up.
But the law does not say most of what its opponents say it does. There do appear, however, to have been some poorly decided cases in FL based on SYG.
Not the Zimmerman trial. It was well decided, and did not involve SYG anyway.
So, according to liberals, aggressors can force people to take action, thereby enslaving them to their demands. Anytime anyone else can force you to take actions through threats of violence you are a slave and a coward.
Seems the liberals are supporting the aggressors, the predators, the criminals, of society instead of supporting peaceful people and their right to self defense.
If aggressors do not want to be hurt or killed they simply should not assault other people.
We simply do not hang or put to death enough criminals.
So the victim is going to have to prove that he/she could not retreat or they will be charged - it almost assumes guilt until proven otherwise.
"Hand in hand"? Isn't more like a frolicking between the sheets at a brothel?
Are they telling us to become like the French?
Retreat and get beat.
courageus =”courageous” I guess I just have a difficult time with the letter O.
Zimmerman was retreating at the advice of the dispatcher when he was jumped by Martin.
Martin, under the circumstances needed to go straight
home but didn’t. Why not?
Did he have something he didn’t want his family to see, like the ingredients for “Lean”? Was he looking for a spot where he could do his “Lean”? He wasn’t going to do the high in front of his family was he?
Didn’t he call Rachel because he needed the advice of a peer and not a parent? Did she tell him to give Zimmerman an “ass whupping” so he could then do his drug in peace? I think she did tell him to beat up Zimmerman. The person really responsible for Martin’s death is Jeantel. She’ll live with that the rest of her life.
Why should I have to retreat? Why don't you not attack me?
“The “traditional” common law of England, transferred to the USA as the basis of our legal system in every state but LA, imposes a duty to retreat on those who claim self-defense.”
The reason for that was everyone belonged to their king as property and to kill someone meant the king had one less person in his kingdom.
That's what Stand Your Ground laws are about. So if this is what they are talking about then at least they've identified the right issue for once.
Stand Your Ground laws remove the duty to retreat. That's the point. In a non-Stand Your Ground state you have can't use self-defense if you can retreat from the confrontation. However, even in those jurisdictions the law only requires you to retreat if you can do it in complete safety. Since turning your back on someone, or trying to outrun someone, may not be a completely safe option, in most cases a completely safe retreat may not be available.
What Stand Your Ground laws are really about is preventing a potential prosecutor from twisting the facts of a self-defense event to make it look like you could have gotten away.
The problem is ... you and I have a conscience. Living with something like that the rest of our lives would be terrible. She on the other hand has no conscience. She’ll be past it as soon as she spends the last of her CNN money.
Which means, of course, that they want to set back race relations 75 years.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business, why should I ever have to retreat from thugs?
This is civilization; the law of the jungle is not the law here.
Someone should ask Holder if he and his armed bodyguards would retreat if someone attacked them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.