I avoid parking meters like the plague. With an abundance of restaurants and bars in Atlanta that don't require payment for parking why I turn a $10 meal into a $40 evening?
I support limiting people's exposure to second hand smoke but criminalizing it with jail and draconianly high fines are overreaching and turns the image of Atlanta into a harsh and unduly punitive looking city.
This would only become newsworthy in America among its neo-puritan, hyper-conservative, body-phobic citizens. The human body is not lewd, as this story would have never made the news in most parts of the world.
>>>“Had she not been [crossing the street] there, there would be no accident,” Sadow told the three appellate judges...
Barbaric ruling using the erroneous interpretation above.
The statement should have said....'Had she been crossing the street ANYWHERE, there would have been no accident'.........to infer that there would NOT have been an accident if only they had crossed someplace else (even a crosswalk) is no guarantee that the child would not have been hit by that drunk driver anyway.
And yes prosecutors have discretion they could have used to avoid manslaughter charges, as can an intelligent jury use nullification to result in a dismissal of the case, as written law is not necessarily the final say in what is legal or not.
>>>It is also worth noting that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has no bearing on the Martin case.
Maybe no bearing or relevancy to the case once the public outcry rendered an arrest. But the Stand Your Ground law had everything to do with him not being arrested or charged initially.
>>>Since he claims to have been physically immobilized by Martin prior to the shooting, the old "duty to retreat" requirement would not have applied due to the futility of the situation.
Exactly. Which is why Stand Your Ground is overly broad and over reaching. It is word games to describe Duty to Retreat as a "requirement" to the extent that Stand Your Ground must exist. If "futility of the situation" exempts the situation (as other exemptions likely exist) then Duty to Retreat is not an absolute "requirement" to the extent that demands a law to eliminate the adherence to Duty to Retreat.
>>>That post wasn't even coherent.
It might have helped to clarify that when I stated "but, in this case", I was referring to the Stand Your Ground law.
>>>"Stand your ground" is a law that _eliminates_ the duty to retreat. Neither of these constitutes a "legal strategy"
All laws are legal strategies, that seek justice.
>>>and the duty to retreat is very much the opposite of a "legal protection" for those claiming self-defense.
I stated "lethal self defense..", not 'legal self defense'.
>>>the concept of self-defense as an affirmative defense to charges of homicide remains unaltered by recent changes to the law.
Only because the Stand Your Ground law prevents an arrest from taking place in the first place even if a person makes even a slightly rationalized claim that satisfies the law.
As for the rest of your dismissive and personally critical post, your failure to successfully argue the legitimacy of such a controversial and unjust law, speaks volumes as to why the law is being sought to be overturned around the country.
Likewise, the idea that no circumstances exist where, inadherence of "duty to run" would present guaranteed legal liability of lethal self defense is also absurd. As such, "duty to run" is not an absolute requirement for self defense, but is, this case, an extremely and overly broad legal protection, in potential situations where, this 'across the board' "standard", may be too inaccurate to be used as a guaranteed legal immunity.
"Duty to run" and "stand your ground" are both legal strategies that seek to eliminate, or at least minimize the gray areas in legal rights and protections. The problem is, "stand your ground" provides carte blanche protection, based on a persons self report, that may be fundamentally rooted in a person's claim that their beliefs and/or feelings, warrantied lethal self defense, before a potential legal charge could be made, that would contain the eventual option that a jury could sort out the legitimacy of the situation and defendant's claims. On the other hand, "duty to run" still provides the option to charge a defendent for a jury to sort out.
All Comments »
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation