by jshuberg on Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:18 pm
Heffay, you seem to think stand your ground does something that it does not. It does two things in Florida, it removes the duty to retreat, and provides an alternate process in the form of a stand your ground hearing to the standard self defense procedures. What was passed in MN by the legislature and vetoed by Dayton was simply the elimination of the duty to retreat.
What does it mean the duty to retreat? It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean that Zimmerman would have been guilty for having gotten out of his car and followed Martin. The duty to retreat begins at the moment that violence is introduced into an encounter. Prior to the introduction of violence, no duty to retreat exists, and nothing a person does that is lawful can be used against him as evidence of a failure to retreat, or being a willing participant to the violence. The duty to retreat begins at the point where violence is introduced into an encounter, and the requirement to retreat is prior to your use of violence to defend yourself. If you fight back, it can be argued that the window of time where you were required to retreat has closed, and if you've missed it, self-defense is no longer an option for you. This is in all practicality a very small window of time, measured in seconds or even less. When a person is attacked with violence, his reaction is going to be entirely instinctual. Some people will flee, some will fight back. Requiring a person to flee if possible requires him to do something completely unnatural - to fail to act instinctively when attacked, but rather to make a calculated and rational decision as to whether an avenue of retreat exists, and if taking it under the circumstances is practical.
While the duty to retreat sounds like a good idea on it's face, making it a requirement in those few fractions of a second you have to react to save your life is simply unreasonable. Where people go wrong is in the false belief that the duty to retreat exists prior to an encounter becoming violent, like during an argument, or if someone follows or approaches the other where it eventually leads to violence. It doesn't. Zimmerman following Martin prior to the introduction of violence would not have been a violation of the duty to retreat. Stand your ground was in no way an issue in the Zimmerman case - it's introduction as a talking point is nothing more than a distraction from the fact that the media, civil rights leaders, and liberal politicians all jumped to an incorrect conclusion, which was that Zimmerman was a racist who killed Martin because he was black. They were wrong, the jury recognized this, and now they have to find something to rail against to keep people from realizing that they were nothing but race-baiting frauds.
Regardless of whether the duty to retreat exists or not, anything that you do that is lawful prior to the violence, no matter how stupid, cannot be used against you as evidence of your having committed a crime. All a duty to retreat does is introduce the potential to turn victims into criminals in the courtroom. It has absolutely zero effect on how a person will instinctively react to being attacked with violence.
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Personal Protection In The Home Instructor
NRA Life Member
MCPPA Certified Instructor
Gulf War Veteran