muhly22222 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/8/2013 3:39:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
ORIGINAL: MizzSpitfire I realize that, hlen, but unless it can be proved the man did NOT fear for his life or his family's, I believe his reaction was justified. This takes us back to Zimmerman/Martin, MizzS. The "stand your ground law" puts the burden on the shooter. I would not wish to be this shooter defending firing a weapon at a fleeing felon and claiming fear of life. It would be laughed out of court I think. Even many "castle" laws do not support that action. Every self-defense case puts the burden on the shooter, because it's an affirmative defense. Basically, the shooter is arguing, "Yeah, I committed the crime, but I was justified in doing so." What the stand-your-ground law does is it removes any duty to retreat. In many states (Ohio included), people have a duty to retreat if they can do so safely prior to using deadly force, although a number of states also have so-called "castle laws," which remove that duty when the defendant was in their own home and/or car. Thus, the shooter here did not have any duty to retreat, but he still has to prove that he had a reasonable fear of some imminent bodily harm to him or somebody else in the restaurant. There are a number of factors that will determine the outcome of this case. For instance, if the robber was leaving the restaurant, but he was backing out and waving his gun around, that fear is much more reasonable than if the robber had put his gun back in his pocket, turned around, and was running outside.
|
|
|
|