| You saved me a lot of halsse just now. |
|
| Interesting. I see what you mean (with the "and") but that's not how I read the law. A Terry frisk would always be prmiisseble under standard Terry rules. But it's the detention to ask questions part that most gets my attention. If detention without probable cause is not allowed (as I and I think most police read the law), then yes, they could be sued. Though it's hard to see the damages as being too much. Still, who wants to get sued for doing his job?As to the aggressor part... it does matter. Because as the law is written, you've got two parties who can use lethal force against each other. If somebody (ala Zimmerman) confronts a person they think (wrongly) is a criminal. And the suspected (non) criminal puts up a fight, you're in a lethal free for all. Jesus fucking Christ! Somebody needs to simply stand down and walk away. And the law needs to encourage deescalation. Or at least be limited to "your" ground. This isn't "stand your ground." In Zimmerman's case it was "stand on somebody else's ground." It's like the worst of the ghetto/white southern culture of respect enshrined in law. When push comes to shove. Walk away. It works a lot of the time. Martin was getting followed and then confronted. He was innocent. I think he had every reason to stand his ground. Zimmerman, if he was then getting beat up by Martin, then legally (though not morally) also had every reason to stand his ground. It's a legal free for all!In the wording of the law, I think the problem is the "unless" clause. Unless you can't retreat. Well once you're getting beat up, you very well might not be able to retreat. Suddenly, lethal force is again an option. http://bthbbzkxk.com [url=http://lerkpdgpu.com]lerkpdgpu[/url] [link=http://ympnctobxt.com]ympnctobxt[/link] |
|
| This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for wrtigni! http://wqarfd.com [url=http://drqoswmt.com]drqoswmt[/url] [link=http://bjbgqurqp.com]bjbgqurqp[/link] |
|
|
<< Prev 
Next >>
