:rolleyes:
Exceptions, not exemptions. They are exceptions to the general rule from subsection 2, that “A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one.” Hence the unless.
Your overall point still eludes me. What in subsection one makes use of deadly force to prevent a robbery per 2(b) not justified?
Also, any response to my supporting cites?
The point of the comparison (as I understand it) isn’t who got shot, it’s the propriety of attacking someone in the circumstances.
It assumes (I think) that Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him and being followed is threatening and causes fear. It then contrasts that with Goetz’s decision to attack the four youths for confronting him on the subway in order to rob him. The question, I believe, is: why do people view Martin as an aggressor and Goetz as a victim? (I think the question applies with equal force in a scenario where Zimmerman doesn’t shoot Martin and Martin is, instead, charged with assault).
They are not exceptions. Take a look:
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
A person may use physical force to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary subject to the provisions of subdivision two.
2(b) is in regards to the duty to retreat, not the use of deadly force.
Let’s take a look (bolding mine):
So, the part you’ve been quoting about robbery, is regarding that one does not need to retreat if he believes a robbery is taking place or about to occur. That does not mean he can use deadly force. He must still believe that deadly physical force is about to be used (as bolded above).
A newspaper article isn’t necessary as a cite when we have the statutes. What’s written in the book has to be taken in context. Better to stick to the statutes.
Unless I’m confused (entirely possible), you’re mixing up the ordering of the outline.
2 says you can’t use deadly force unless
A. You believe deadly force is coming and you can’t retreat OR
B. Kidnapping, rape, etc. OR
C. A qualifying burglary.
So the appropriate reading of 2 is: “A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery.” Which suggests if that you do reasonably believe you’re being robbed, you can use deadly force.
I see what you’re saying. However, 1. still states “to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person.” Using deadly force for a robbery isn’y going to fly unless doing so is reasonably necessary.
Exactly. The kill-Martin crowd didn’t even try to hide it very hard. At least one poster here got banned over his constant ranting about blacks being thugs and “quasi-human” or some such phrase in threads about Martin.
Falchion already pointed out what I was going to, that the duty-to-retreat part of subsection 2 is a sub-set of 2(a), which is why it is broken out as 2(a)i and 2(a)ii. i and ii do not apply to 2(b).
To your above point, the robbery is what is believed to be necessary to defend against. 2(a) and 2(b) make it clear that the imminent use of deadly force, and the imminent commission of kidnapping, forcible rape, a forcible criminal sexual act or robbery, are both justifications for the use of deadly force in self defense.
Note that subsection one includes “subject to the provisions of subdivision two”. 2(b) is such a provision.
It’s evidence that you might be interpreting the statutes incorrectly, though. I’m not offering them in lieu of the statutes, but as a guide to interpreting them.
Why not? The robbers were clearly willing to rob. What would have stopped them?
And even so – we don’t need the robbery. The robbers pointed a gun at the man who ultimately shot them. That act, alone, gives rise to his reasonable fear of imminent use of deadly physical force.
Fallacy of hasty generalization: merely because one person was a racist does not imply that any others, let alone the whole “crowd,” were.
I think DT is on solid ground if he’s willing to define the “kill-Martin crowd” as people who were convinced he deserved to die due to his age, gender, race, and personal problems, regardless of what the facts of what happened, or the law, may have been. There were a few scary folks in that camp.
There were many more people who concluded that Zimmerman should be acquitted on the basis of the facts and the law, though.
I can think of all sorts of situations where one is attempting to rob another without the use of physical force where one can attempt to get out of the situation without using deadly physical force.
Of course. I wasn’t talking about a specific case. If someone is pointing a gun at you, you have a reason to believe someone is about to use deadly physical force against you.
You’re a lawyer, so what’s your interpretation of the statutes Human Action linked to? Does it say that one may use deadly physical force against a robber whether or not he or she reasonably believes that his or another’s life is in danger?
Subsection 2 says (bolding mine): A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless…
That means the circumstances in subdivision one must exist.
Question for you:
I’m a middle aged guy in pretty good shape. A 90 y.o. man slowly using a walker comes up to me on a street in NY and demands all of my money. He is not brandishing a weapon. It is obvious to me and witnesses that he is serious and of sound mind. According to your interpretation of the statutes, am I justified in using deadly force?
That’s not really a forcible robbery, is it?
Regards,
Shodan
And in a robbery, by definition, they do. A robbery must include force, or it’s not a robbery.
If, in the opinion of the jury, the man was robbing you, then yes, you are. That was the state’s position in the Goetz case, recall: that the men were panhandling, and not robbing, Goetz.
Subsection one says: use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend…
The extent of physical force used to defend is a factor. If it’s not necessary for the physical force used to be deadly, I doubt a court is going to interpret the law the way you did and conclude that as long as there was a robbery, deadly force is justifiable.
The statute seems to say otherwise. Here’s another article that seems to back me up:
But, I’m no lawyer. I could be wrong. I’m content to wait for some of the resident lawyers to chime in, if they’d be so kind.
Okay, the 90lbs. old man grabs me by the collar when he demands my money. I bash his skull in with a brick.
Any they are whom I’m talking about. however…
On the contrary, I believe that the racists were the majority, not the minority. If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would have almost no support at all. And he’d almost certainly have been convicted.
It says right there “which Justice Crane told the jurors were the two grounds that would justify Mr. Goetz’s use of his weapon”.
Those two things are “the specific threat of robbery” and the "threat of deadly physical force.‘’