Originally Posted by Helen Lawson
I'm from Florida. There were some trials that were well publicized where the people killed someone else in self-defense outside the home, but the prosecutor charged them anyway, claiming that they had the duty and the ability to retreat, which was then the law. The cases were very sympathetic to the defendant in that it was upstanding types and the dead person was a career criminal in the middle of some crime, etc. They were extreme cases, nothing like the two pending now. These people were having to stand trial and explain how they didn't think they could retreat or it happened so fast, they didn't have time to figure out a retreat. Then the prosecutors were arguing that they could have retreated, second guessing the defendant's mental state in a moment of emergency. I think all of these people were acquitted, but a murder trial is horrible and people felt sorry for them. There was a public thought that if the duty to retreat didn't exist, people like this wouldn't have to stand trial and if they had to prove self-defense anyway, who cares about the duty to retreat. So, everyone was all in favor of it, that if someone attacks you in public, you don't to second guess defending yourself.
A white chick plugged her ex or estranged husband about a year ago and tried to use stand your ground in Seminole County in front of the old Trayvon Martin judge, but it was denied, she's going to trial and have to prove inability to retreat to a jury.
white on white crime doesn't usually assist in the comparison but do you remember the circumstances of that case? is it the same sort of circumstances where the marissa alexander got 20 years for firing a warning shot and was denied SYG even though her husband had a history of domestic violence...it seems a bit strange that she wasn't afforded the immunity of SYG because:
"there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
in contrast with george zimmerman or this current case where both were outdoors and could easily have fled the scene if they felt threatened but instead chose to go up to the people they felt threatened by and "claim the kids had guns" and start shooting...even with evidence showing there were no weapons, both are still clinging to that defence...
it does seem a bit strange that people walk around pulling guns on black kids and can say they felt threatened IN OPEN AREAS, yet when black kids (and black people in general) shoot someone (or in marissa's case - fire a warning shot that harms no one) they aren't usually afforded the same innocent til proven guilty...
but i am only looking from the outside of the US and going by media and internet reports