1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • stand your ground

    From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 19 07:41:06 2023
    in the wake of the Ralph Yarl shooting, I was wondering if there have been
    any decisions/appeals defining "being scared"? It seems like it is a free "kill your enemies and don't go to jail" card if all you have to do is not
    have any third party witnesses and then just say you were real scared and
    you killed them in "scared defense" :o)

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Wed Apr 19 11:30:30 2023
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:41:06 -0700, Bernie Cosell wrote:

    in the wake of the Ralph Yarl shooting, I was wondering if there have
    been any decisions/appeals defining "being scared"? It seems like it
    is a free "kill your enemies and don't go to jail" card if all you have
    to do is not have any third party witnesses and then just say you were
    real scared and you killed them in "scared defense" :o)

    /Bernie\

    I can see that becoming a football in court. A beefy six-foot six
    quarterbacks level of "scared" being compared to that of a 4-foot
    nonagenarian grandmothers level.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Wed Apr 19 14:50:21 2023
    "Bernie Cosell" wrote in message news:fnqv3ih5efbhbg7fmks0ktngh3slbe7a80@4ax.com...

    in the wake of the Ralph Yarl shooting, I was wondering if there have been >any decisions/appeals defining "being scared"? It seems like it is a free >"kill your enemies and don't go to jail" card if all you have to do is not >have any third party witnesses and then just say you were real scared and
    you killed them in "scared defense" :o)

    /Bernie\

    Like other cases where there aren't witnesses, it just comes down to the credibility of the witness.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Wed Apr 19 14:49:59 2023
    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

    in the wake of the Ralph Yarl shooting, I was wondering if there
    have been any decisions/appeals defining "being scared"? It
    seems like it is a free "kill your enemies and don't go to jail"
    card if all you have to do is not have any third party witnesses
    and then just say you were real scared and you killed them in
    "scared defense" :o)

    The traditional approach is that you're not allowed to use deadly force
    against someone unless it's actually necessary to prevent imminent
    death or grave bodily harm. Stand your ground modifies that a bit by
    saying that you're not required to run away to avoid bodily harm, and
    can defend yourself without fleeing.

    From a legal standpoint just being afraid isn't enough. There should
    be an objectively reasonable belief that severe harm is imminent.
    Someone simply knocking on the door shouldn't be enough to allow stand
    your ground to innoculate a killing.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Wed May 17 07:05:35 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 10 May 2023 13:07:19 -0700 (PDT),
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" <hast1065@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
    Bernie Cosell wrote:

    in the wake of the Ralph Yarl shooting, I was wondering if there
    have been any decisions/appeals defining "being scared"? It
    seems like it is a free "kill your enemies and don't go to jail"
    card if all you have to do is not have any third party witnesses
    and then just say you were real scared and you killed them in
    "scared defense" :o)

    Except that's not how self-defense works. To qualify, you must
    have been in a situation where a reasonable person would think
    they were in danger of death or severe bodily harm.

    Your own emotions and/or beliefs are necessary but not sufficient
    to qualify as "self-defense"

    And even then, you're not allowed to use deadly force unless it's
    necessary to prevent death or severe bodily harm. That should be the
    rule even in a "stand your ground" state.

    Do you mean "should be" to say, "it ought to be [but maybe isn't]" or
    "you surmise that it is" the rule?

    I can easily read it either way. The second choice might be less
    obvious but it's as in, "This should be enough food for the two of us.".


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to micky on Thu May 18 15:58:03 2023
    micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" <hast1065@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
    Bernie Cosell wrote:

    in the wake of the Ralph Yarl shooting, I was wondering if
    there have been any decisions/appeals defining "being scared"?
    It seems like it is a free "kill your enemies and don't go to
    jail" card if all you have to do is not have any third party
    witnesses and then just say you were real scared and you killed
    them in "scared defense" :o)

    Except that's not how self-defense works. To qualify, you must
    have been in a situation where a reasonable person would think
    they were in danger of death or severe bodily harm.

    Your own emotions and/or beliefs are necessary but not
    sufficient to qualify as "self-defense"

    And even then, you're not allowed to use deadly force unless it's
    necessary to prevent death or severe bodily harm. That should be
    the rule even in a "stand your ground" state.

    Do you mean "should be" to say, "it ought to be [but maybe isn't]"
    or "you surmise that it is" the rule?

    I can easily read it either way. The second choice might be less
    obvious but it's as in, "This should be enough food for the two of
    us.".

    "Should be" meaning that would be the rule if common law principles
    were followed. But since each state has its own rules, and I have
    not studied all the rules of all the states, I don't know if they
    abandoned all reason.

    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)