quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You also seem to misunderstand SYG. It changes self defense. In regular sane self defense law if confronted with a danger to yourself your first obligation is to retreat. Only if retreat is not an option are you allowed to use force. Under SYG if you perceive a threat to yourself you are allowed to use force immediately. It is a crazy idea that is turning self defense into a license to kill, as it did in this case.


You seem to misunderstand SYG. All it does is say your not a criminal if you forget to run.

No. It quite clearly upends self defense standards that go back to English common law and that worked.

Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change.

First being shot at fulfills, I am quite sure, the standard of a real, not an imagined threat.
And in spite of your belief there has to be a reasonable expectation of serious injury.
You have listened to people like nos who would have you believe that you can shoot someone because you think they look kind of dangerous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change.

There are grey areas one must be cognizant of, as I think this case may be. But your arguments are always on the side of the criminal.

You're a perfect victim, DK. Compliance with criminality is your mantra. Retreat, retreat. Retreat again. Tell us why anyone has any duty to ever retreat? From what foundation does a criminal proceed that he should have the upper hand? Apparently it seems you posit that it's the victim who brings the violence.

Is not one who opens the gates of Hell as responsible as those who proceed out of it? Or act because of it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You also seem to misunderstand SYG. It changes self defense. In regular sane self defense law if confronted with a danger to yourself your first obligation is to retreat. Only if retreat is not an option are you allowed to use force. Under SYG if you perceive a threat to yourself you are allowed to use force immediately. It is a crazy idea that is turning self defense into a license to kill, as it did in this case.


You seem to misunderstand SYG. All it does is say your not a criminal if you forget to run.

No. It quite clearly upends self defense standards that go back to English common law and that worked.

Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change.

First being shot at fulfills, I am quite sure, the standard of a real, not an imagined threat.
And in spite of your belief there has to be a reasonable expectation of serious injury.
You have listened to people like nos who would have you believe that you can shoot someone because you think they look kind of dangerous.

In this case the shooting had stopped, the girls who may have shot were no longer present, but some how it was still SYG. So I see no way there was a reasonable expectation of injury and the judge specifically stated that all that mattered was that the killer thought his life might be in jeopardy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so not retreating means you can kill anyone who gets in the way??
what a fucking stupid analogy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Under SYG it is no longer necessary to be in a truly desperate situation to deploy deadly force. You simply have to perceive that the situation might become so desperate. That is a huge change.

There are grey areas one must be cognizant of, as I think this case may be. But your arguments are always on the side of the criminal.

You're a perfect victim, DK. Compliance with criminality is your mantra. Retreat, retreat. Retreat again. Tell us why anyone has any duty to ever retreat? From what foundation does a criminal proceed that he should have the upper hand? Apparently it seems you posit that it's the victim who brings the violence.

Is not one who opens the gates of Hell as responsible as those who proceed out of it? Or act because of it?

The duty to retreat is based on common sense. If a confrontation occurs and it is possible to get away that is what you should do. It's worked for 500 years. Now SYG is less than a decade old and we have people killing boys because of loud music and for just being in the wrong place. If you cannot see that the problem is giving people a license to kill rather than requiring that deadly force be used only in the direst circumstance.

BTW I've never been robbed. The only guy to ever try is doing 20 years and probably still can't use his wrist properly (don't point an obvious toy gun at me).

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Where in the law does it say that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so not retreating means you can kill anyone who gets in the way??
what a fucking stupid analogy

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

That has to be one of the most disingenuous statements about the law from someone who wasn't getting paid to make it, that I've seen in years.

The duty to retreat in English Common Law based legal systems comes from chattel law... serfs and peasants were property of the crown, and had no right to raise their hand against the Crown or its agents. Same concept which held that a woman had no right to deny sex to her husband.
Some of the former colonies drew on it in the form of Apartheid, and Jim Crow, and Terra Nullius prohibitions against certain groups.

Here in America, this was undone by the 13th and 14th Amendments and ensuing court decisions... perhaps you missed the memo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again that depends on two things.
First which article you read.
Second that Scott knew the fight was over.
But first and foremost we must make self defense very difficult in any situation and impossible outside the home.

quote:

You neatly forget that the judge had a lot more information than we have.
Don't you think that had Scott just randomly picked someone to shoot he would have ruled differently?
Or are you with your much more limited information able to adjudicate the incident better than the judge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maestro702

However spending 3 minutes on Wiki tells us that English Common law dates back to at least 1154, and that there were certainly Serfs in England until formally freed by Elizabeth I in 1574.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maestro702

However spending 3 minutes on Wiki tells us that English Common law dates back to at least 1154, and that there were certainly Serfs in England until formally freed by Elizabeth I in 1574.....

Interesting that the term "serf" wasn't in use until 1611 and is French-based.

The English were certainly not an enslaved people; at least not to the extent that the word 'serf' would appear to extend.

Merriam Webster
Main Entry:serf
Pronunciation:*s*rf
Function:noun
Etymology:French, from Old French, from Latin servus slave
Date:1611
: a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner
–serf£age \*s*r-fij\  noun 
–serf£dom \*s*rf-d*m, -t*m\  noun 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again that depends on two things.
First which article you read.
Second that Scott knew the fight was over.
But first and foremost we must make self defense very difficult in any situation and impossible outside the home.

Of course. The use of deadly force should only be used in extremis. Otherwise we have anarchy and Somalia.

quote:

You neatly forget that the judge had a lot more information than we have.
Don't you think that had Scott just randomly picked someone to shoot he would have ruled differently?
Or are you with your much more limited information able to adjudicate the incident better than the judge.

The judge clearly stated that it was simply the killers belief that he was in danger that mattered. The boy who was killed was not involved in what ever violence had previously happened. He was not in the SUV that had just driven by where the shots supposedly came from. He was parked across the street with no one else in the car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maestro702

However spending 3 minutes on Wiki tells us that English Common law dates back to at least 1154, and that there were certainly Serfs in England until formally freed by Elizabeth I in 1574.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again that depends on two things.
First which article you read.
Second that Scott knew the fight was over.
But first and foremost we must make self defense very difficult in any situation and impossible outside the home.

Of course. The use of deadly force should only be used in extremis. Otherwise we have anarchy and Somalia.

quote:

You neatly forget that the judge had a lot more information than we have.
Don't you think that had Scott just randomly picked someone to shoot he would have ruled differently?
Or are you with your much more limited information able to adjudicate the incident better than the judge.

The judge clearly stated that it was simply the killers belief that he was in danger that mattered. The boy who was killed was not involved in what ever violence had previously happened. He was not in the SUV that had just driven by where the shots supposedly came from. He was parked across the street with no one else in the car.

So clearly you think you are better equipped to adjudicate the incident than the judge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You forget that England got much of it's law from the French, remember that William guy?
Slave isn't a Latin word, does that mean that Rome had no slaves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maestro702

And I haven't found the judges 12 page opinion online yet. Commenting on it with out reading it seems kind of pointless. Though it is noteworthy that S Carolina Doesn't have a SYG law, so any media pretending it does is obviously biased and not trustworthy on the subject. The defense used PPP which is a codification of Castle Doctrine. SYG laws apply to places other than the home(and in some places automobile) where a person has a legal right to be. As this happened at home SYG is not relevant in any way shape or form, except for activists trying to exploit this tragedy as a tool to get something they want.

It would be nice if folks claiming the judge said something would post the actual quote.

But till the actual opinion and the judges actual ruling be posted this thread is mostly blather.