A Florida man has been accused of double homicide after killing two men and shooting another eleven times. His defense? “Stand your ground” law, of course, which says an armed person does not need to retreat if they feel threatened. The Bush Doctrine is also sited as precedence of pre-emptive defense. If you are enjoying living in the wild wild west be sure to thank a Republican.
http://rt.com/usa/bush-stand-ground-florida-homicide-433/
Jim, you generally get it right, and you are above taking cheap shots. I believe you need to look again at the “stand your ground” laws. (They do very from state to state.) In general, they take away the requirement to retreat prior to exercising a right to self defense. They DO NOT give the right to use force or lethal force. That is a part of a self defense justification. The only time one is justified in using force and/or lethal force is when on is under attack. Prior to “stand your ground”, a person attacked by others in most cases had to prove that they had no avenue of retreat. That required proving a negative. How can one prove what might have happened if an untaken action was taken? Self defense, with or without “stand your ground”, is an affirmative defense. Prior to “stand your ground,” it was always very tricky. Now, with no duty to retreat, prosecutors and grand juries, recognize that prosecution cannot be successful, and thus no prosecution. However, self defense is required.
In terms of the Bush Doctrine, it was crap when applied by Bush, and it won’t wash in criminal law, no matter what people try to say. As the DPS says in CHL Instructor training, “imminent” means “fixin’ to happen right now!” All the elements have to be in place.