Dec 18th 2014, 17:48:19
http://www.foxnews.com/...n-exchange-student-death/
First to anyone, such as the Associated Press: STOP CALLING THIS A STAND YOUR GROUND CASE. Having shouted that out, let me explain. Stand your ground laws have only come into existence in the last 10, maybe 20 years. Stand your ground laws mostly govern the use of force to defend yourself outside of the home and business. They came about largely as a result of state legislators deciding that local and state prosecutors had not used their prosecutorial discretion appropriately in deciding whether or not to prosecute cases where an individual felt threatened and defended themselves against an attack. Legislators mostly decided that in instances where an individual that did not instigate violence is confronted with violence, they're actions to defend themselves should be questioned with regard to their ability to retreat. Legislators decided that you shouldn't have to think about your ability to retreat in the heat of that moment because in that moment you may not have the time to think about retreating. This is an individual protection that applies to the individual and the possessions on their person. In stand your ground cases, there's the victim and the perpetrator, that's it.
This case centered on a much older defense doctrine...the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine in most states says that your home, your car, and your business is your castle and you have the right to be secure in your castle. The castle doctrine says that if someone breaks into your home, you may reasonably assume that they mean to do you harm and you have the right to defend yourself up to and including the use of lethal force. That being said, the castle doctrine can be overcome if the prosecutor is able to overcome the assumption.
This case is now (@~12:30 pm eastern time) in the sentencing phase, but the defense has already announced their intentions to appeal the verdict. I'm no lawyer, so I can only respond as a citizen. I do not believe that someone should be able to set a trap and then claim castle doctrine. It is one thing to set up security systems and respond to them if they're triggered. It's rather a different situation if a person sets up security and some bait and an open door and them arms themselves for a confrontation that they are expecting to come. That sounds like a police sting operation to me and a police sting operation must be operated with the intent of capturing and prosecuting a suspect.
Justice has been done in this case. The prosecutor has overcome the castle doctrine assumption. This was murder, plain and simple. Right up until Markus Kaarma fired his gun in anger, he was a victim; he could have chosen to remain that way by calling the police and by ordering Diren Dede to get out of his garage and off his property. Mr. Kaarma could even have issued those orders with weapon drawn and scaring the stupid out of Diren Dede, but in his anger he chose not to pull back from his trap.
Stand your ground laws pulled back on overzealous prosecutors, but prosecutors must still make sure that the public understands where the limitations are, where their rights end and the rights of other people (or society at large) begin.
First to anyone, such as the Associated Press: STOP CALLING THIS A STAND YOUR GROUND CASE. Having shouted that out, let me explain. Stand your ground laws have only come into existence in the last 10, maybe 20 years. Stand your ground laws mostly govern the use of force to defend yourself outside of the home and business. They came about largely as a result of state legislators deciding that local and state prosecutors had not used their prosecutorial discretion appropriately in deciding whether or not to prosecute cases where an individual felt threatened and defended themselves against an attack. Legislators mostly decided that in instances where an individual that did not instigate violence is confronted with violence, they're actions to defend themselves should be questioned with regard to their ability to retreat. Legislators decided that you shouldn't have to think about your ability to retreat in the heat of that moment because in that moment you may not have the time to think about retreating. This is an individual protection that applies to the individual and the possessions on their person. In stand your ground cases, there's the victim and the perpetrator, that's it.
This case centered on a much older defense doctrine...the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine in most states says that your home, your car, and your business is your castle and you have the right to be secure in your castle. The castle doctrine says that if someone breaks into your home, you may reasonably assume that they mean to do you harm and you have the right to defend yourself up to and including the use of lethal force. That being said, the castle doctrine can be overcome if the prosecutor is able to overcome the assumption.
This case is now (@~12:30 pm eastern time) in the sentencing phase, but the defense has already announced their intentions to appeal the verdict. I'm no lawyer, so I can only respond as a citizen. I do not believe that someone should be able to set a trap and then claim castle doctrine. It is one thing to set up security systems and respond to them if they're triggered. It's rather a different situation if a person sets up security and some bait and an open door and them arms themselves for a confrontation that they are expecting to come. That sounds like a police sting operation to me and a police sting operation must be operated with the intent of capturing and prosecuting a suspect.
Justice has been done in this case. The prosecutor has overcome the castle doctrine assumption. This was murder, plain and simple. Right up until Markus Kaarma fired his gun in anger, he was a victim; he could have chosen to remain that way by calling the police and by ordering Diren Dede to get out of his garage and off his property. Mr. Kaarma could even have issued those orders with weapon drawn and scaring the stupid out of Diren Dede, but in his anger he chose not to pull back from his trap.
Stand your ground laws pulled back on overzealous prosecutors, but prosecutors must still make sure that the public understands where the limitations are, where their rights end and the rights of other people (or society at large) begin.
-Angel1
EE Patron