Post Reply
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Castle" law likely to stay
3 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 8:26AM #31
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

The state of Virginia has passed a sensible law regaeding home protection. If you shoot an intruder in your home, the intruder can no longer sue you.


Imagine the prior nonsense, an intruder breaks into your home and you wound him you were liable to be sued by the intruder. This law goes to show just exactly what slimeball lawyers would do to make a buck.


An intruder into my home doesn't have to be concerned about being wounded a 50cal Desert Eagle will take care of that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 10:14AM #32
Cesmom
Posts: 5,323

If the Zimmerman/Martin case doesn't get this law over-turned, I don't know what will.


I mean, think about it...even if 100% of what George Zimmerman claims is actually what happened (and I don't personally believe that's the case), he should still be charged and penalized for his reckless behavior.  But, under this law, he wouldn't be charged.  That fact should cause an uproar all by itself.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 12:40PM #33
rabello
Posts: 22,031

Apr 3, 2012 -- 10:14AM, Cesmom wrote:


If the Zimmerman/Martin case doesn't get this law over-turned, I don't know what will.


I mean, think about it...even if 100% of what George Zimmerman claims is actually what happened (and I don't personally believe that's the case), he should still be charged and penalized for his reckless behavior.  But, under this law, he wouldn't be charged.  That fact should cause an uproar all by itself.




+100


I agree completely.  I think there should be some consequence for taking another life, not a free pass.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 3:34PM #34
mindis1
Posts: 8,047

Apr 3, 2012 -- 10:14AM, Cesmom wrote:


If the Zimmerman/Martin case doesn't get this law over-turned, I don't know what will.


I mean, think about it...even if 100% of what George Zimmerman claims is actually what happened (and I don't personally believe that's the case), he should still be charged and penalized for his reckless behavior.  But, under this law, he wouldn't be charged.  That fact should cause an uproar all by itself.



To the best of my reckoning, even if Zimmerman’s story were 100% true (which, like you and a lot of other people, I don’t believe), he would be charged with first degree murder in most every state (since, contrary to the claims and suggestions in the OP article, the majority of states do not have draconian laws such as Florida’s and Texas’ “stand your ground” laws). Instead, due to Florida’s law, Zimmerman is not even arrested and charged, much less prosecuted for murder, at least so far. This should indeed cause an uproar; it should be the straw that causes these laws to be repealed. I am not greatly confident that is going to happen right now, however.


BTW, thanks for article in the your previous post. I didn’t know about what has been happening under these laws.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 8:52AM #35
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Apr 3, 2012 -- 12:40PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 3, 2012 -- 10:14AM, Cesmom wrote:


If the Zimmerman/Martin case doesn't get this law over-turned, I don't know what will.


I mean, think about it...even if 100% of what George Zimmerman claims is actually what happened (and I don't personally believe that's the case), he should still be charged and penalized for his reckless behavior.  But, under this law, he wouldn't be charged.  That fact should cause an uproar all by itself.




+100


I agree completely.  I think there should be some consequence for taking another life, not a free pass.




I agree it is a stupid law. Even as a life member I have opposed many of the nitwit legislation supported by the NRA.


If Zimmerman intended to kill, why use a 9mm peashooter.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:05PM #36
Stardove
Posts: 15,706

One point of my OP was this:


The person using the force cannot have provoked the confrontation. "You cannot start something and then go grab a gun," Segura said. And the use of force isn't justified in a simple verbal dispute as a result of "talking trash," he said.


In other words you can't start a fight, provoke someone and then claim self defense, if you shoot or injure the other person.


As stated in the TX penal code you linked: (2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;


I also said see more at the link.  One reason I didn't quote the entire article is the Rules of Conduct has what is called property rights meaning entire articles are not to be quoted.


Throwing in a question about stealing a TV in general does not say if the thief was using a gun or not. Break-ins are not always about stealing TVs.



Apr 2, 2012 -- 2:22PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 1, 2012 -- 2:28PM, Stardove wrote:


But the author of the co-called "Castle Doctrine" law, which is taking center stage in the Texas debate and eases the rules on when deadly force can be used in the home, said it wouldn't even apply under the circumstances of the Martin case because the 17-year-old was killed on the street.

The Texas law is being misconstrued as being the same as Florida's "stand your ground" law, said Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

"That's not what it is," he said.




Both Sen. Wentworth (R-San Antonio) and the writer of this article need to try to pull their heads out of their butts. Here is the Texas “stand your ground” law, in Sections 9.31 and 9.32:  www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/h...  This law explicitly allows the use of deadly force even “on the street” as happened with Trayvon Martin. The law obviously does not require that anyone be inside any building or residence.  


The article doesn’t note any difference between the Texas law and the Florida law that is quite likely going to allow the murderer of Trayvon Martin to walk free.


These “stand your ground” laws are not laws that codify the common law “castle doctrine”. There is no reason for a state to codify the common law “castle doctrine”. I guarantee there was never any rash of cases in either Texas or Florida where people were being unfairly prosecuted and convicted under the common law “castle doctrine.” The common law “castle doctrine” includes a duty to retreat. These “stand your ground” laws are laws that displace the common law “castle doctrine”. These “stand your ground” laws are nothing but licenses to murder, exactly as happened to Trayvon Martin. These “stand your ground” laws codify, not the common law “castle doctrine,” but the peculiarly American psychosis about guns.



By the way, Stardove, for some reason you didn’t quote Rep. Coleman’s excellent comments in the article:


"A young life has been lost in Florida and we don't need to see the same happen in Texas," Coleman said in a letter to constituents and in a press statement Wednesday. "The Texas Castle Doctrine too freely gives license to use deadly force based on subjective assumptions and needs to be corrected."


Coleman said he understands Martin's plight of "being born a suspect because of the color of one's skin." Martin was black. The man who shot him, George Zimmerman, is Hispanic.


Coleman said he fought the "Castle Doctrine" bill in Texas because it would have disproportionate consequences on people of color. He said Texas law already allowed the use of deadly force to defend against deadly force if one cannot escape the situation. He said he plans to press for legislation to return Texas law "to a balance that values human life."  (Emphasis mine.)


Is there anyone here who has an intelligent argument that someone who is merely believed to be stealing a TV should be shot dead by one of the millions of American psychotics-about-guns?



In the current case which is a topic at the HTZ the debate becomes who was chasing whom?  The person claiming self-defense put himself in harm's way; then a gun was fired and killed the person the man was going (some say chasing) after.  Clearly the stand your ground laws states this is not allowed.  The Stanford police get an F for failure to do their duty.

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

The words I speak and write carry energy and power, so I choose them with care and clear purpose. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:18PM #37
mountain_man
Posts: 40,224

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:05PM, Stardove wrote:

One point of my OP was this:


The person using the force cannot have provoked the confrontation. "You cannot start something and then go grab a gun," Segura said. And the use of force isn't justified in a simple verbal dispute as a result of "talking trash," he said.


In other words you can't start a fight, provoke someone and then claim self defense, if you shoot or injure the other person.


Apparently the police in Florida see it differently. They let a murderer go just because he claimed to be attacked by someone he persued and confronted.


I also said see more at the link.  One reason I didn't quote the entire article is the Rules of Conduct has what is called property rights meaning entire articles are not to be quoted.


Throwing in a question about stealing a TV in general does not say if the thief was using a gun or not. Break-ins are not always about stealing TVs.


It was a metaphore. The TV just represents a piece of property. These people want to be able to kill someone that is in their house attempting to steal a piece of property.  They value property over a human life. The Texas law, the "castle" law, and the Forida "stand your ground" law, both show that same devaluing of human life.


In the current case which is a topic at the HTZ the debate becomes who was chasing whom?  The person claiming self-defense put himself in harm's way; then a gun was fired and killed the person the man was going (some say chasing) after.  Clearly the stand your ground laws states this is not allowed.  The Stanford police get an F for failure to do their duty.


I have absolutely no doubt that they let the murderer go because of race.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:34PM #38
mindis1
Posts: 8,047

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:05PM, Stardove wrote:


One point of my OP was this:


The person using the force cannot have provoked the confrontation. "You cannot start something and then go grab a gun," Segura said. And the use of force isn't justified in a simple verbal dispute as a result of "talking trash," he said.


In other words you can't start a fight, provoke someone and then claim self defense, if you shoot or injure the other person.


As stated in the TX penal code you linked: (2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;



That is not different from the Florida law that is apparently going to allow Trayvon Martin's murderer to walk free:


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. (Emphasis mine.)


www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chap...




Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:35PM #39
Stardove
Posts: 15,706

Keep in mind this is just a friendly discussion about the laws and from what I've read a grand jury is scheduled to meet on April 10th in Sanford FL about the Trayvon Martin case.  Of course, the Feds are involved now, so I'm not sure how their involvement will effect matters.

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

The words I speak and write carry energy and power, so I choose them with care and clear purpose. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:55PM #40
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Star


Often it is well to remember that many of us disapprove of most of these "Castle" laws. I am one of those.


My husband was Federal law enforcement for many years and I find these laws bunkum. In my home state, New York, hand-gun ownership is highly regulated. Of course, illegal handguns often create havoc even there--buy them in the South and smuggle them North.


Not all of us are pleased with what obtains in the South, including Texas.


This is not altogether a reasonable discussion for all.


There is a dead young black man, unarmed by anything but Skittles and an ice tea. And I have lived in the Atlanta area for 33 years now. I like my life here but some laws still puzzle me.


Jane


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook