• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Anyone catch Q13 stand your ground statement

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
I was watching Q13 fox for a short while this evening when they started coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. Towards the end of the segment they covered that WA has a stand your ground statue however it only applies on your property and not in a public area.

The statements at the end of the segment were incorrect, IMO.

I have a copy of the segment I can try and upload to youtube.

RCW 9A.16.050 said:
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

Also in the court cases below precedent was set when the State Supreme Court found "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.":
137 Wn.2d 533 State of Washington v. Studd; Decided 1999/04/01
150 Wn.2d 489 State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond; Decided 2003/12/06.


It seems Q13 fox is selectively taking only 9A.16.050(2) into account in there broadcast not noticing the first paragraph and the 'OR'. Tisk Tisk for poor reporting.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
The news reporters are wrong/incorrect more often than they get it right IMHO. News reporting has gone downhill in the last 10 or so years to the point that I am waiting for someone to start a news organization that solely exists to correct the other news sources It would be a full time job for a while.

Q6 here in Spokane is a great example of todays reporting they called the Dept of Licensing to get a legal opinion and then took it for gospel without any further research.
 

GuidoZ

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
192
Location
Skagit County, WA
The news reporters are wrong/incorrect more often than they get it right IMHO. News reporting has gone downhill in the last 10 or so years to the point that I am waiting for someone to start a news organization that solely exists to correct the other news sources It would be a full time job for a while.

Q6 here in Spokane is a great example of todays reporting they called the Dept of Licensing to get a legal opinion and then took it for gospel without any further research.
They have - it's called "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". :D

--
Peace. ~G
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Well, I dunno how many times I've tried to explain this to my colleagues in the press..

Somebody forward over a link to my column from yesterday on Treyvon Martin...maybe that'll explain it. Or send me the guy's e-mail address and I'll do it myself. I've already gotten e-mails from an attorney who said my analysis was spot-on (FL v WA legal situations), and it's stirring up a bunch of debate on some of the other forums.

Sheesh!

We have NEVER had a SYG statute and we don't need one. We have court precedent (which IMHO is a hell of a lot better because legislation can be repealed but state Supreme Court precedent stands) and FL has a statute.
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
Per Fox News, an eye witness who saw the whole thing and called 911 reported that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him badly when he ran into his house to cal 911.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...led-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1prh6jh2k

While Zimmerman didn't need to chase after Martin, it clearly came to the point where Martin was beating the snot out of Zimmerman.

There's a lot that the media leaves out of that situation, not sure why.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
well, regretfully, the only thing I think you can call the press on when it comes to reckless disregard for truth is defamation. Too bad. Would be good if you could sue them for false reporting whenever it happens...
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Per Fox News, an eye witness who saw the whole thing and called 911 reported that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him badly when he ran into his house to cal 911.



Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...led-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1prh6jh2k

While Zimmerman didn't need to chase after Martin, it clearly came to the point where Martin was beating the snot out of Zimmerman.

There's a lot that the media leaves out of that situation, not sure why.

Really? You're not sure? You don't think they have an agenda to advance with their manipulated propaganda? ;)

Clearly an innocent young black man just turning his life around was senselessly gunned down by a racist white xenophobe redneck who should IMMEDIATELY AND SUMMARILY BE EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL!!! Facts are quite irrelevant. In the media.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Per Fox News, an eye witness who saw the whole thing and called 911 reported that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him badly when he ran into his house to cal 911.



Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...led-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1prh6jh2k

While Zimmerman didn't need to chase after Martin, it clearly came to the point where Martin was beating the snot out of Zimmerman.

There's a lot that the media leaves out of that situation, not sure why.


But maybe him beating the crap out of Zimmerman was self defense?

Let's put it this way...what would you tell your kid to do in this situation? Run, then last resort fight?

Not enough info, but the fact the kid was going to a friends house , all he had was candy and ice tea, the kid tried to leave the situation (something I tell my kids to do, even for our "security" they have no right to detain them) doesn't appear to me the kid was the aggressor to begin with.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
One can only answer a threat with enough force to stop the threat. If for example Zimmerman walked up to Martin and grabbed his arm and asked what are you doing here that is simple battery and Martin has the legal right to use enough force to break free, any force that goes very far beyond that could be a problem for Martin. If Martins response was to punch Zimmerman in the face knock him down and the pile on and proceed to beat the dog crap out of him at some point Zimmerman now has the right to use deadly force if the beating continues and is sever enough. This is just a scenario that could have played out based on witnesses saying Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Think about it you can just shoot someone for grabbing your arm nor can you beat the crap out of someone that grabs your arm either.

It is real easy to go from victim to aggressor when you did not even start the fight. Once the threat is over it is over.

I don't have enough information to make a judgment here but I would guess that Zimmerman is not in jail because of something we don't know.

Please don't take this as defending Zimmerman he sounds like a real piece of work.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
One can only answer a threat with enough force to stop the threat. If for example Zimmerman walked up to Martin and grabbed his arm and asked what are you doing here that is simple battery and Martin has the legal right to use enough force to break free, any force that goes very far beyond that could be a problem for Martin. If Martins response was to punch Zimmerman in the face knock him down and the pile on and proceed to beat the dog crap out of him at some point Zimmerman now has the right to use deadly force if the beating continues and is sever enough. This is just a scenario that could have played out based on witnesses saying Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Think about it you can just shoot someone for grabbing your arm nor can you beat the crap out of someone that grabs your arm either.

It is real easy to go from victim to aggressor when you did not even start the fight. Once the threat is over it is over.

I don't have enough information to make a judgment here but I would guess that Zimmerman is not in jail because of something we don't know.

Please don't take this as defending Zimmerman he sounds like a real piece of work.

Exactly on point here, I have said it others many times you may be down on the ground fighting for your life before deadly force is authorized, of course depending upon the circumstances.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Interesting that this story went to racism so fast and heavy along with President Obama Chiming in on it! When is the last time he spoke out for another race on such issues?


776.013
 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—


(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
One can only answer a threat with enough force to stop the threat. If for example Zimmerman walked up to Martin and grabbed his arm and asked what are you doing here that is simple battery and Martin has the legal right to use enough force to break free, any force that goes very far beyond that could be a problem for Martin. If Martins response was to punch Zimmerman in the face knock him down and the pile on and proceed to beat the dog crap out of him at some point Zimmerman now has the right to use deadly force if the beating continues and is sever enough. This is just a scenario that could have played out based on witnesses saying Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Think about it you can just shoot someone for grabbing your arm nor can you beat the crap out of someone that grabs your arm either.z

It is real easy to go from victim to aggressor when you did not even start the fight. Once the threat is over it is over.

I don't have enough information to make a judgment here but I would guess that Zimmerman is not in jail because of something we don't know.

Please don't take this as defending Zimmerman he sounds like a real piece of work.

Good points. I am not taking either side, there is too much not known. But the truth of the matter is that sometimes in self defense some loose control, if Zimmeran was calling the guy abusive names and then grabbed him maybe the kid just snapped, had had enough and every bigoted name called him came out in a rage of punches...

I haven't heard of one thing the kid did wrong before the encounter other than "appear suspicious" boiler plate words...if I ever have heard them.

All of it speculation...I would be hesitant to condemn either one...yet one is dead and one is alive..
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
I remember the richard jewell incident during the 2007 olympics, he to was tried and found guilty in a court of public opinion when the truth was he did his job and saved lives.

We do not know enough of what really happened, in a contact situation if zimmerman initiated the confrontation then he has a hard time claiming self defence since he initiated, however if he broke away and then Mr. martin re-engaged him there would be cause for self defence.

The problem now has become that people are stirring this up so much that even if it comes out that he had legal justification we are going to be looking at another rodney king "riot in the steets" scenerio because what they want to happen doesn't
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
One can only answer a threat with enough force to stop the threat. If for example Zimmerman walked up to Martin and grabbed his arm and asked what are you doing here that is simple battery and Martin has the legal right to use enough force to break free, any force that goes very far beyond that could be a problem for Martin. If Martins response was to punch Zimmerman in the face knock him down and the pile on and proceed to beat the dog crap out of him at some point Zimmerman now has the right to use deadly force if the beating continues and is sever enough. This is just a scenario that could have played out based on witnesses saying Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.

Think about it you can just shoot someone for grabbing your arm nor can you beat the crap out of someone that grabs your arm either.

It is real easy to go from victim to aggressor when you did not even start the fight. Once the threat is over it is over.

I don't have enough information to make a judgment here but I would guess that Zimmerman is not in jail because of something we don't know.

Please don't take this as defending Zimmerman he sounds like a real piece of work.



Exactly on point here, I have said it others many times you may be down on the ground fighting for your life before deadly force is authorized, of course depending upon the circumstances.


Both of you sound as if you are referring to the concept of justifiable or excusable homicide. The problem I see with your positions is that the person claiming justifiable or excusable homicide as their defence must generally have been free of guilt in the lead-up to the killing. In other words, if someone laid hamds on another and got the snot beat out of them to the point they thought they would suffer a great bodily injury (or whatever your state calls it), they are not justified or excused for killing the person beating the snot out of them. The law will say that they started the affray by laying hands on the other person.

The law generally allows one to cease the affray and by word or deed indicate you are withdrawing from the conflict while retreating as far as is possible, and if the other person continues the affray the one now retreating can be justified or excused in killing the other. Case law generally sets the bar quite high for proof of withdrawing and retreating - usually to eliminate the possibility of someone starting something, quickly saying they quit, and then proceeding to kill the other. In other words, it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card when you did/probably did mean from the start to kill the other.

From what's been published, and making the great leap of faith that what's been published so far is close to accurate, Capt. Neighborhood Watch did not withdraw and retreat at any time after starting the affray.

stay safe.
 
Top