Trayvon

[JR4AU]

Yeah...  I'm thuch a brute.  How dare I attempt to protect private property.  What a thilly Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon conthept!!! 

Wait...  What's that enlightened, politically correct opinion regarding private property?  It's only stuff.  Well, something like that, anyway...

Gotta agree here.  Taking responsibility for one's own safety, as well as the safety and well being of their community is something more folks ought to do, rather than depending on the police.

[djsimp]

Gotta agree here.  Taking responsibility for one's own safety, as well as the safety and well being of their community is something more folks ought to do, rather than depending on the police.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AL have a similar law only it pertains to ones yard or land?

[CCTAU]

When little boys grow up and work for and pay for their own shit, they tend to get a little more protective over that shit that they worked hard for. I remember thinking its only shit, when I was growing up and didn't have shit. But now that I have shit, its my shit. And I worked hard for it. I will protect it.

[JR4AU]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AL have a similar law only it pertains to ones yard or land?

If you mean can you stand your ground if attacked, yes, in Alabama you can now.   You never had a duty to retreat in your own house or on your land, but now, if you're attacked anywhere, you may stand your ground.

[djsimp]

If you mean can you stand your ground if attacked, yes, in Alabama you can now.

Yes. It seems just a few years ago, the law stated that one had to give 2 or 3 warnings before shooting. Now, no warning.

[Vandy Vol]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AL have a similar law only it pertains to ones yard or land?

I don't believe any state allows deadly force for the protection of personal or real property.

The caveat to this is that many states allow you to use deadly force if you're in your home or place of business, some states allow you to use deadly force in your home or place of business only if you reasonably believe that the person is committing or intends to commit a felony, some states allow you to use deadly force in public ("stand your ground") if you believe the person is committing or intends to commit a forcible felony, etc.

So, if someone is stealing property from your house or land, and the commission of that crime constitutes a felony, you can often (depending upon the state and its specific laws) use deadly force and claim self defense...but it's not directly related to defense of your property.  It's related to the likelihood of harm to the person during the course of a felony being committed, or during the course of breaking and entering, etc.

If you could use deadly force merely for the protection of property and nothing else, then spring-guns in uninhabited houses would be considered appropriate self defense; they're not.  Even though self defense laws are often based upon whether a person is in your home, the law is still intended to protect people, not property, hence the term self defense.

[JR4AU]

Yes. It seems just a few years ago, the law stated that one had to give 2 or 3 warnings before shooting. Now, no warning.

No, no warnings were ever required.  The old law said if you could do so safely, you had to attempt to get away from your attacker if you were in a public place. 

[CCTAU]

I don't believe any state allows deadly force for the protection of personal or real property.

The caveat to this is that many states allow you to use deadly force if you're in your home or place of business, some states allow you to use deadly force in your home or place of business only if you reasonably believe that the person is committing or intends to commit a felony, some states allow you to use deadly force in public ("stand your ground") if you believe the person is committing or intends to commit a forcible felony, etc.

So, if someone is stealing property from your house or land, and the commission of that crime constitutes a felony, you can often (depending upon the state and its specific laws) use deadly force and claim self defense...but it's not directly related to defense of your property.  It's related to the likelihood of harm to the person during the course of a felony being committed, or during the course of breaking and entering, etc.

If you could use deadly force merely for the protection of property and nothing else, then spring-guns in uninhabited houses would be considered appropriate self defense; they're not.  Even though self defense laws are often based upon whether a person is in your home, the law is still intended to protect people, not property, hence the term self defense.

That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.

[djsimp]

That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.

Unless of course you have your rifle in hand. Then its BRASS.

[JR4AU]

I don't believe any state allows deadly force for the protection of personal or real property.

In Tx they do.  May not be "on the books" but there was an old fart that shot 2 guys coming out of his neighbors house.  Shot them in the back as they ran from him.  Whole thing caught on his 911 call.  He even told the 911 operator he was going to get his gun, leave the safety of his house and stop them.  He yelled "stop, you're dead" and pulled the trigger as he was saying it, killing both with 2 shots..  DA, I think, presented to GJ, and no indictment. 

[Vandy Vol]

That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.

If you start chasing someone down the street with a gun (especially if it's drawn), then you can no longer claim self defense.  In fact, they would then have the ability to claim self defense, as the tables were turned and you were now threatening their life.

It wouldn't matter if the guy you're chasing previously attacked you; once they stop the action which caused you to think your life was threatened, and especially when they turn to run away, you can no longer act in self defense.

[JR4AU]

That's why you chase them with a gun and a cell phone. If they run, they have a chance. If they turn to fight, then it is self defense. The cell phone is to call for either the police or the coroner, depending on the assailant.

Um, no.  You start chasing someone, and YOU have the gun, and they decide to stand and fight, and win, guess what, you were the assailant, and they were defending themselves.  If you win, and they did nothing but stop and stand their ground?  You are in trouble. 

What Zimmerman did, at least from the tone of his call, was merely keep Trayvon in sight.  Big difference between that and giving chase. 

[CCTAU]

You don't chase them where anyone can see you. And you take your dog with you so that you can claim you were walking the dog and out of nowhere........

Damn. I just gave my plan away.....

[Vandy Vol]

In Tx they do.  May not be "on the books" but there was an old fart that shot 2 guys coming out of his neighbors house.  Shot them in the back as they ran from him.  Whole thing caught on his 911 call.  He even told the 911 operator he was going to get his gun, leave the safety of his house and stop them.  He yelled "stop, you're dead" and pulled the trigger as he was saying it, killing both with 2 shots..  DA, I think, presented to GJ, and no indictment.

True, but Texas is an entirely different animal when it comes to gun laws and their enforcement.  One of the problems with Texas (and Florida) is that, unlike other states, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the act wasn't committed in self defense.

Now, while this burden of proof is normal for your average criminal charge, most states have determined that due to the absence of their best witness (the victim), the prosecution shouldn't have that burden.

Also, you have to consider that Texas blatantly ignores their own laws, or at least their judicial results are often in blatant violation of their own laws.  Look at Ray Lemes, for instance.  He claims some guy entered his home; the evidence showed nothing was disturbed in his home and that there were no signs of forced entry.  Lemes claimed the guy charged him, and that he shot the guy from his own yard while the assailant was eight feet away and still charging; the "assailant's" body was found more than 40 feet away from the house, and the ejected bullet cases were in the street no where near the house or where Lemes claimed he was standing.

The kicker?  Of his five wounds, forensics showed that only one bullet entered the assailant while he was standing.  And that wound entered his back.

So what happened to Mr. Lemes?  He was acquitted.

[Token]

True, but Texas is an entirely different animal when it comes to gun laws and their enforcement.  One of the problems with Texas (and Florida) is that, unlike other states, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the act wasn't committed in self defense.

Now, while this burden of proof is normal for your average criminal charge, most states have determined that due to the absence of their best witness (the victim), the prosecution shouldn't have that burden.

Also, you have to consider that Texas blatantly ignores their own laws, or at least their judicial results are often in blatant violation of their own laws.  Look at Ray Lemes, for instance.  He claims some guy entered his home; the evidence showed nothing was disturbed in his home and that there were no signs of forced entry.  Lemes claimed the guy charged him, and that he shot the guy from his own yard while the assailant was eight feet away and still charging; the "assailant's" body was found more than 40 feet away from the house, and the ejected bullet cases were in the street no where near the house or where Lemes claimed he was standing.

The kicker?  Of his five wounds, forensics showed that only one bullet entered the assailant while he was standing.  And that wound entered his back.

So what happened to Mr. Lemes?  He was acquitted.

Because they found 12 people who believed the suspect was a piece of shit who was there to do wrong.  In reality, that's all it takes. 

It's going to be hard to find 12 people who wouldn't shoot someone who was bashing their head on the ground. 

[GarMan]

You don't chase them where anyone can see you. And you take your dog with you so that you can claim you were walking the dog and out of nowhere........

Damn. I just gave my plan away.....

Well, it's your dog.  Wait, wrong thread...

[JR4AU]

Because they found 12 people who believed the suspect was a piece of shit who was there to do wrong.  In reality, that's all it takes. 

It's going to be hard to find 12 people who wouldn't shoot someone who was bashing their head on the ground.

Yep.  It's true, most of the time you can indict a ham sandwich, but sometimes the GJ actually pays attention.  I've had them indict people I tried to persuade them not to indict, and fail to indict some I wanted.  In the end, Zimmerman probably survives grand jury in a county that is only 11% Black.

[CCTAU]

One of the problems with Texas (and Florida) is that, unlike other states, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the act wasn't committed in self defense.

Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Me thinks the government has forgotten the basis of our legal system in this country.

[Vandy Vol]

Because they found 12 people who believed the suspect was a piece of shit who was there to do wrong.  In reality, that's all it takes.

Of course...but finding 12 people who agree that shooting someone in the back as they are running away from you outside of your home doesn't mean that the law actually condones that; it just means that those 12 jurors did.

You might find 12 jurors who also see nothing wrong with a 32 year old having sex with a 5 year old, but that doesn't mean that the laws of the state condone it.

Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Self defense claims are unique.  Afterall, in order to claim self defense, you must claim that the "victim" was doing something illegal which endangered your life.  Shouldn't that victim also get the chance to show that they were innocent, or do we assume they're guilty just because they are the dead party in the matter?

[JR4AU]

Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Me thinks the government has forgotten the basis of our legal system in this country.

Me thinks you're not understanding what he said.