Well, but I know about what German courts require in cases of self-defense with a gun.
I'm sorry to hear that the US have not developed some sensible framework of self-defense.
back
1 comments
Ah; the US has 50+ frameworks of self-defense, given our federalism.
What do you not find sensible about Florida's? If you accept Zimmerman's account of the incident, which we presume the jury did, he only resorted to lethal force after he was in legitimate fear for his life, and he never had an opportunity to retreat (states vary greatly on duty to retreat vs. stand your ground).
What do German courts require?
I find the Florida system eminently sensible, even not going far enough. Maybe just because I'm kind of used to it.
German self-defense law is even stronger than all those Stand Your Ground laws in the US.
I guess only here law professors can write about the "ignominious/dishonorable flight" when discussing options against an attacker.
"Justice does not have to yield to injustice" is a very common saying.
But even if the law allows you to strike back, it's usually still a good idea to retreat. :-)
"But even if the law allows you to strike back, it's usually still a good idea to retreat. :-)"
Indeed; the good thing about Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws is that they presume the citizen without fault will make a good decision on that and don't allow the state to second guess him along with everything else it will be questioning (i.e. SYG doesn't touch on biggest question of "is this use of lethal force justified?", which should be the real focus).
I've seen some horrible abuses of duty to retreat from your own home in Massachusetts when the courts were negating as much of every legislative reform as they could; you should never have to decide between abandoning your children to the tender mercies of a thug and going to jail (real case, followed contemporaneously in the Boston Globe in the early '80s).
A saying from an aquaintance who works as a public prosecutor in capital cases:
"Generally it's preferable to discuss the limitations of self-defense with the prosecutor, than having the family discuss with the undertaker."
> and he never had an opportunity to retreat
He had the option to not follow someone, and to stay inside his vehicle, as he was advised to do by the police he called.
Poking someone with a stick and then killing them when they respond is a bizarre use of self-defence.
No, by his account, and more importantly the recording, which I've listened to in full, the "police"---actually a dispatcher, who's instructions have no force of law whatsoever--- said "you don't need to do that" after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle after he said Martin started running. You can tell by the ambient noise he then stopped, that he did follow the advice.
Again by his account, while returning to his vehicle he was confronted by Martin, who said the first and also hostile words, and not even the prosecution claimed that Zimmerman initiated force, the affidavit strangely changes to the passive voice, "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued".
It comes down to who's use of lethal force was justified; I find it bizarre you don't think getting your face pounded, as confirmed by an eye witness, and getting your head bashed into concrete, also confirmed by photos and the physician's assistant who attended to him, isn't sufficiently lethal force to allow a reply of lethal force in legitimate self-defense.
That isn't even going into Zimmerman's claim that when Martin realized Z had a gun, he said he was going to kill him and reached for it.