Posted on 03/24/2012 4:27:07 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
Thanks.
I’m not surprised of the gang sing / thug pictures considering where this occured. Sanford isn’t some pristine upperclass suburban area on the outskirts of Disney World. It’s more like Compton, sketchy parts of LA and the inner city hell holes across the country.
looking at Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's "Torts - Cases and Materials" 9th edition, on page 104 under the heading of "Self-Defense," point No 6 says (without giving any case cite):
Retreat. One basic disagreement in approach to the privilege of self-defense focuses on whether the defendant must retreat if he can do so without increasing his danger, rather than stand his ground and use force. It is settle that he may stand his ground and use any force short of that likely to cause serious injury. The common law was that, rather than kill his assailant or seriously wound him, defendant must "retreat to the wall." A minority of the American courts still apply this rule, and it is adopted by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 65. The majority, chiefly in the south and west, have insisted upon a higher important of the dignity and honor of the individual and have held that the defendant may stand his ground and use deadly force, and even kill his assailant. [Remark about retreating from a gun bearing assailant skipped]and Section 65 of Restatement of Torts 2nd, says this ...
S: 65. Self-Defense By Force Threatening Death Or Serious Bodily Harm (1) Subject to the statement in Subsection (3), an actor is privileged to defend himself against another by force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, when he reasonably believes thatThe link has notes and example scenarios.(a) the other is about to inflict upon him an intentional contact or other bodily harm, and that
(b) he is thereby put in peril of death or serious bodily harm or ravishment, which can safely be prevented only by the immediate use of such force.
(2) The privilege stated in Subsection (1) exists although the actor correctly or reasonably believes that he can safely avoid the necessity of so defending himself by
(a) retreating if he is attacked within his dwelling place, which is not also the dwelling place of the other, or
(b) permitting the other to intrude upon or dispossess him of his dwelling place, or
(c) abandoning an attempt to effect a lawful arrest.
(3) The privilege stated in Subsection (1) does not exist if the actor correctly or reasonably believes that he can with complete safety avoid the necessity of so defending himself by
(a) retreating if attacked in any place other than his dwelling place, or in a place which is also the dwelling of the other, or
(b) relinquishing the exercise of any right or privilege other than his privilege to prevent intrusion upon or dispossession of his dwelling place or to effect a lawful arrest.
Rodney King didn’t die; there were no murder charges.
The cops were accused for the beating, and cleared by a jury (who saw the WHOLE tape - it was evidence). The feds then got involved and brought them up ion charges in a second trial, for civil rights violations (the catch-all when the desired verdict isn’t reached); this second layer of protection is only available to ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, basically anyone but a Christian male of European descent. In the second trial they got the desired verdict (and more whites fled CA).
Sanford is near the armpit of Florida known as Orlando. If it looked middle-class, it WAS upscale for that area.
The NBP should be rounded up and placed in prison for being a domestic terrorist organization.
Did Obama really say that? Wouldn’t that be offensive somehow if he had said that?
A teachable moment.
This won't change anyone's opinion, true but it will fire up the base, black people who will vote for Obama come what may because he is black and leftist white people who would vote for Obama anyway because he is red.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Do we have a definitive source for them? With some of them it is hard to tell it was him.
I would agree with you there. If one were attacked from behind and knocked to the ground then pummeled by an assailant much larger than you, standing ones ground is no longer in the equation. It has now become a matter of survival........
"Stand your ground" presumes that you have an avenue of retreat. Mr. Zimmerman did not, he was on his back with his assailant on top of him......
I wish I lived there; I would get one of those flyers and reprint them with the leader of the Black Panthers face and name on it and redistribute it right back at them!
I don’t think many “leftist whites” will vote for Obama this time; their utopia hasn’t materialized, and they are struggling along with everyone else.
Despite what many think, OWS is not a bastion of support for Obama; they feel deceived by him, and many are still looking for their first jobs. They probably won’t support a Republican, but they won’t be fooled again by the Kenyan Pirate. I think the only “leftist whites” in his corner are homosexuals and public school teachers.
Even blacks have a lot less incentive to vote for him, and I’m sure they are a lower percentage of the electorate now than they were four years ago
Castle Doctrine laws clearly improve the situation of reasonable actors. I mean, it is prima facie reasonable to use deadly force against a stranger breaking in.
Stand Your Ground laws, OTOH, are unclear (to me) about whether or not, lacking a duty to retreat, now also void a duty to act reasonably. My example of joining a bar fight and shooting if things don't go your way is on point.
IF (and it's a big if) a jury finds that Zimmerman, in toto, acted unreasonably in confronting Martin, does the current Florida law protect him once he started getting his ass kicked?
That's the question I'm looking for an answer to.
There was a somewhat similar case in Houston, 2-3 years ago. Mr. Joe Horn (white guy) was at home and observed a daytime burglary of his neighbor’s home. Horn confronted the two black, illegal aliens and killed them when they attacked him. The local rabble pimps demanded Horn’s head RIGHT NOW. Grand Jury refused to indict him and he was freed without charges AFTER all the facts were presented. The rabble pimps tried to protest at Horn’s home. Many Houstonians came to Horn’s assistance and literally CHASED the pimps out.
Obama’s teachable moment in MA was the first time people realized he was a thinner Al Sharpton; he’s been bleeding “white” support ever since.
Want to prove your asserting about what the law says by giving us a legal citstion of the exact law that say it?
Being that I am surrounded by leftist whites much of the time, they will indeed be pulling the lever for Obama again. Anyway, fashionably liberal whites in NY and NJ are irrelevant as both states voting for Obama are foregone conclusions. What matters are swing voters in Ohio. Colorado and Virginia.
Yep. Once you're overwhelmed with physical force, the option of retreat ins't available. It would be asinine for the law to assign a duty to retreat, to a person who is overwhelmed with force.
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.