Really? This Qualifies For "Stand Your Ground"
- Thread starter Booky
- Start date
Man Found Guilty Of Manslaughter Despite 'Stand Your Ground' Defense
Jurors took six hours to settle on the verdict. During deliberations, the jurors sent the judge a note saying they were confused by the self-defense law, according to The AP. The judge said he could only read them the law again.
The law, as described by The Associated Press, is a lengthy one that "generally says a shooting is justified if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the shooter could not have instigated the altercation."
.
Jurors took six hours to settle on the verdict. During deliberations, the jurors sent the judge a note saying they were confused by the self-defense law, according to The AP. The judge said he could only read them the law again.
The law, as described by The Associated Press, is a lengthy one that "generally says a shooting is justified if a reasonable person under those circumstances would believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. But it also says the shooter could not have instigated the altercation."
.
Last edited:
I disagree with the "he's guilty because he started it" narrative. So you can't ever call someone out for doing something wrong? That's bullshit. As long as you don't escalate it to a physical confrontation. He's guilty because at the point he fired the shot the guy was backing away from him.
The law is basically saying that you can’t start a fist fight with someone then shoot the guy when he starts handing you your ass.
I’m speculating, but to your point there are other reasons he was found guilty and it’s entirely possible his conviction had nothing to do with that specific language.
Isnt that part of the responsibility of carrying? You dont need to be a parking enforcement officer if theres a chance things get heated. If it doesnt matter to you then carry on with your own business, carrying or not. Besides, all the evidence points to him "starting shit" and if you are the instigator you have no right to stand your own dumb ass ground.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 976
"Altercation " means noisey argument, not a fist fight. It is commonly used incorrectly, but if the law reads as quoted above, if you say something to someone, and that leads to a fight, you are legally required to let him beat you to death.
That’s an interesting point that if you start a fight, let them beat the hell out of you. You would most definitely have a harder time proving self defense if you started the situation, tried to retreat and then forced to lethally defend yourself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This all comes from Castle Law rights being extended to SYG...or "anywhere you have a right to be."
IMO It was a step too far and even a power grab by civilians, after we worked so hard to just own the ground we pay taxes on and try to make ourselves safe.
The same thing happened in NH.
SYG is not what I hazarded my life, time and money to fight for in court and at the time of the incident. But we gained an inch and took a mile.
This shit is going to get messy, because it is going to create a might vs right situation every time.
IMO It was a step too far and even a power grab by civilians, after we worked so hard to just own the ground we pay taxes on and try to make ourselves safe.
The same thing happened in NH.
SYG is not what I hazarded my life, time and money to fight for in court and at the time of the incident. But we gained an inch and took a mile.
This shit is going to get messy, because it is going to create a might vs right situation every time.
In the article it said he was surprised to hear the guy was backing up. I’m betting he will appeal the decision and get it reduced or overturned. That was a sticky situation once he got knocked to the ground.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 976
I don't get why we even need SYG laws, let alone why anyone would oppose them. I mean, if someone attacks me, how in the world does the legal burden shift to me to retreat or otherwise defuse the situation?
Just because someone attacks you does not mean shoot to kill. It would seem like the use of lethal force would be appropriate if your in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Ohio requires a responsibility to retreat except in certain cases of home or car.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 976
That doesn't address my point.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 976
So, if I am attacked in Ohio, the legal burden of insuring a state approved outcome is on me, and not the person who chose to attack me? How is that not pure nit-wittery?
Fortunately that’s not what the law says:
776.041 Use or threatened 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 or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of 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 or threatened 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 or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.
You answered your own question.
I disagree. Yes if you start a physical altercation and you're getting your ass kicked for it you shouldn't be able to legally escalate it to lethal force. Or even if you threaten it. But calling someone out on their bullshit? Nah.
Same thinking is why I’m racist and sexist for being a white guy with muscles.
We live in a land of faggits.
That being said, dude in this case is a piece of shit and shouldn’t be packing. We can fry him for all I care
Sent from the El Paso JR college dorm using the svtperformance.com mobile app
I agree with that, but thats not what happened here. Problem is people will go around starting shit just for an excuse to pull a trigger, case and point. This scenario
yup..probably.
Anything the judge did not allow to be used by the defense will be used for appeal.
Like if the shooter's past was used against him and the pusher's past was kept from the jury....along with anything the defense requested a hearing over and were denied.
That would include any expert witness he was denied to have speak in his defense...."as such a experts testimony would be so strong as to create a 'thirteenth juror.'"...the thirteenth juror ruling ...set by precident ...used to block expert witness testimony for the defense.
yup.
Last edited:
Its going to be an interesting follow. IMO he shouldn’t have confronted the woman and just called the cops to notify them of what happened.
When the guy backed up. The shooter shouldn’t have shot. That’s where he missed up again and I understand that he got knocked to the ground, but if some pecker head was going off on my wife. I would have pushed him too.
Users who are viewing this thread
