Backlash from the Trayvon Martin Case

Status
Not open for further replies.

One_Jackal

member
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
542
The day that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin The NC attorney general announced that he would request that the general assembly revisit our castle doctrine. The reason for his request is the law is to vague.

In other states with castle doctrines and stand your ground laws announcing similar proceedings?
 
Arkansas has had its own SYG law since ~1975. I've heard no talk of revisiting whether it's a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Tennessee has had a stand your ground law since 2007.
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/info/Leg_Archives/104GA/bills/BillSummary/SB2672.htm

So far I have heard little or no talk about the legislature revisiting the Tennessee law based on allegations of what Zimmerman may or may not have done in Florida.

I would hope that the Tennessee law would be judged based on how it has worked in Tennessee cases.

There has been some chatter on the subject.

http://www.tennesseelawblog.com/2012/04/tennessee_stand_your_ground_la.html
Jim Higgins, "Tennessee Stand Your Ground Law", Tennessee Injury Lawyer Blog, The Higgins Firm Attorneys at Law, 10 Apr 2012.
A video interview with attorney Jim Higgins on the Tennessee Stand Your Ground Law following the Zimmerman/Martin incident.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/17269244/tennessees-stand-your-ground-law-being-debated
Kimberly Barbour, "Tennessee's "Stand Your Ground" law being debated", WRCB NBC TV Chattagooga, 27 Mar 2012.
The debate reported though is in the news media.

There is really little to no mainstream interest in revisiting the law.

Locally and recently, a guy who claimed self defense in a questioned shooting (a fired employee punched the boss in his office and the boss shot him) got 2 years voluntary manslaughter, 2 years altering a crime scene (allegedly planting a knife to "improve" the situation), and 6 years use of a firearm in a felony crime of violence. There is simply no rash of people "getting away with murder" as the critics allege.

Basicly you can stay out of jail unless investigation produces evidence that meets probable cause that the use of deadly force was criminal, rather than be automatically jailed. I hope any adjustments to the law are based on adjudication of actual cases rather than theoretical hypothetical hysterics.
 
I'm meeting with my local state senator on the 4th, I'll know more about the feelings on SYG and the Missouri implementation of Castle after that.

She has called guns a 'safety risk' in the past, should be an interesting discussion.
 
Virginia has only case (common) law (and a pretty good body) no statute law.

We could use some type if indemnification against civil suite, but they have not been an issue.
 
Someone over at MSNBC (and like minded folks) may toss VA in as a state that has revisited SYG (they're only going to tell you part of the story), as it was just defeated.
VCDL fought the SYG law that was being offered, as they thought it was actually weaker than the case law etc we now have. I think they're working with the individuals that crafted the recently defeated SYG bill in order to make it at least as strong (I'm sure stronger) than VA's current case law, with plans to reintroduce at a later date?

Those folks over at MSNBC are unbelievable with their spin on Fast and Furious!
 
a similar expansion of Alaska's law, in order to simplify it (I believe changing the location phrase to something like has a right to be, instead of specific locations)
was quietly dropped once the democratic, anti gun bigwigs stated they would make a media circus.
 
It took a lot of years to get a castle doctrine in NC. Once the door is open opponents of the castle doctrine will attempt to gut it.
 
Here in Florida, Governor Scott commissioned a task force to review our "Stand Your Ground" law - a largely political move in my opinion and unlikely to result in any changes.

Considering the ideology of Governor Scott and both houses in our state legislature, there's little chance the law gets modified or repealed.
 
trapperjohn said:
I understand that Arkansas does NOT have a SYG law
I believe that you've been misinformed. It does not go by the name "SYG," but the underlying principle is codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-2-607 and 620. In dealing with SYG anc Castle Doctrine, two code sections are important. The first section, §5-2-607, was enacted in 1975, with §5-2-620 following in 1981.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;
(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.
(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:
(1)(A) By retreating.
(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:
(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor
; or
(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or
(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
(c) As used in this section: . . . .

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607 (West)
Emphasis supplied to highlight the part that effects SYG principles. In short, Arkansas law only requires one to retreat when the actor knows that he or she can retreat with complete safety. Not suspicion, not belief, not partial safety, or even to a safer place, but knowing that retreat can be accomplished with complete safety. There may be some theoretical duty to retreat, but the standard is so high as to render it inoperable. If things have gotten to a point that you're faced with an SD shooting, can you ever "know that you can retreat with complete safety?"

I know that this isn't a Castle Doctrine thread, but Arkansas has some pretty clear law on that, even though it doesn't go by the name "Castle Doctrine," either. There's no duty to retreat in your own home, as long as you're not the initial aggressor. See §5-2-607(b)(1)(B), above. Also, §5-2-620 speaks to defense of the home:
(a) The right of an individual to defend himself or herself and the life of a person or property in the individual's home against harm, injury, or loss by a person unlawfully entering or attempting to enter or intrude into the home is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.
(b) There is a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish a purpose described in subsection (a) of this section was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(c) The public policy stated in subsection (a) of this section shall be strictly complied with by the court and an appropriate instruction of this public policy shall be given to a jury sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection with this public policy.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-620 (West)
 
The immunity provisions related to most Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws should probably be reviewed. The incident in Florida highlighted that most of the laws state that a conforming self-defense shooting confers immunity from prosecution, but do not define how to get official recognition of that immunity. Florida has (sort of) worked out a mechanism for official recognition through case law, but other states might benefit from detailing the process through statutory law.
 
Someone mentioned it earlier, but I think there's two types of reviews; 1) to see if the wording creates any legal loopholes, and 2) to see if the law is "unethical" and should be revoked.

1) I can agree with, and honestly it has the potential to make our position STRONGER. If the law is poorly written, it gives antis the excuse to say we're all planning on exploiting that loophole. Remove any issues, and it makes it harder for antis to attack the law, and makes it harder for people to use the law as an excuse.

2) I disagree with, and is why #1 is so important. We all have the right to defend ourselves. Some people don't want to defend themselves, and think somehow that preventing everyone else from defending themselves makes everyone safer.
 
Some states require a grand jury to look at castle doctrine/stand your ground cases. I think it would be a good idea for NC. The reason we have a castle doctrine in NC is because they couldn't get a grand jury to indict people in cases of self defense even though they could have retreated. Finally there was a high profile case of jury nullification in Durham that pushed the general assembly to pass a castle doctrine. Even though people say a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich I would take my chances here in NC.
 
The day that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin The NC attorney general announced that he would request that the general assembly revisit our castle doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are different laws. The CD was never bought up as a defense for the shooting ( as far as I know) because G Zimmerman wasn't at home which is where the CD applies.
 
Haven't heard any rumblings in PA about CD or SYG...but then again, I've been swamped, so haven't been really paying attention.
 
The Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are different laws. The CD was never bought up as a defense for the shooting ( as far as I know) because G Zimmerman wasn't at home which is where the CD applies.

Different states approach things differently. The most recent change in the NC law was titled "Castle Doctrine," so that is what the AG addressed. The change extended the Castle Doctrine outside the home, provided for immunity from prosecution and, nearly as an afterthought, codified the longstanding judicial position that there was no duty to retreat in NC.
 
Folks please, we all need to be clear. We are not discussing the Zimmerman matter.

What may have actually happened (about which we really have little reliable information) in the Zimmerman incident is irrelevant. This thread is about the political fallout from the incident, and that is a function of public perception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top