I still don’t see how breaking curfew forfeits your right to protect yourself. Like, fine you get busted for a curfew violation, so write him a ticket or charge him with a misdemeanor if you legally can. But that offense doesn’t magically terminate all his constitutional rights. It’s akin to running a red light while being chased, but because you ran the red light you forfeit any right to self-defense. That’s absurd.
- Doc
It doesn’t. It might negate your ability to invoke a stand your ground law. Under those laws, you can only stand your ground if you have a right to be on that ground in the first place. If you’re trespassing, you don’t get to stand your ground. All stand your ground does is change the duty to retreat. Even if you can’t invoke stand your ground, you still have whatever self defense privilege exists under state law.
I think we’re back to the running a red light while being chased thing. Even if he’s trespassing everywhere due to violating curfew, that doesn’t really make sense that you lose your stand your ground privileges, especially since you were in fact retreating until your pursuer caught up to you. If you have to stand your ground because your pursuer caught up to you I don’t see how trespassing-based-on-a-curfew-violation ends that particular right of yours. I get your tactic, but I’m skeptical most courts would think a trespassing charge negates a strong right to self-defense position. But, maybe. I dunno. Has anything like that happened?
Pointing his gun at protesters on a different day is irrelevant. Read the applicable statute.
Jesus Christ I didn't even know it was on a different day. That is what I get for making conclusions too early without taking the time to read everything. Just ignore what I said.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
Pointing his gun at protesters on a different day is irrelevant. Read the applicable statute.
Jesus Christ I didn't even know it was on a different day. That is what I get for making conclusions too early without taking the time to read everything. Just ignore what I said.
Will do.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
It doesn’t. It might negate your ability to invoke a stand your ground law. Under those laws, you can only stand your ground if you have a right to be on that ground in the first place. If you’re trespassing, you don’t get to stand your ground. All stand your ground does is change the duty to retreat. Even if you can’t invoke stand your ground, you still have whatever self defense privilege exists under state law.
I think we’re back to the running a red light while being chased thing. Even if he’s trespassing everywhere due to violating curfew, that doesn’t really make sense that you lose your stand your ground privileges, especially since you were in fact retreating until your pursuer caught up to you. If you have to stand your ground because your pursuer caught up to you I don’t see how trespassing-based-on-a-curfew-violation ends that particular right of yours. I get your tactic, but I’m skeptical most courts would think a trespassing charge negates a strong right to self-defense position. But, maybe. I dunno. Has anything like that happened?
- Doc
It’s not a tactic. It’s what the stand your ground laws say.
All the stand your ground laws do is extend the castle doctrine to wherever you happen to be when faced with imminent death or serious bodily harm, as long as you have a right to be there. It’s a further limit on the duty to retreat. If you choose to retreat, stand your ground is basically irrelevant because you’ve satisfied any duty to retreat. So, in your scenario, the shooter hasn’t really lost anything.
The reasoning behind the requirement is that, if you are some place you have no right to be, you should be subject to whatever your state’s duty to retreat rule is. Only if you have a right to be where you are should you be excused from that duty.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Thank you again. Mr. Rittenhouse is wrong. He started this by putting out those fires and pointing his gun at the people, I am pretty sure of that. Look at the pictures! He can't just have a gun and then not expect to take a beating from time to time. Self defense is no reason to not take his beating and my colleague, Mr. Kraus, made this explicitly clear to the jury in the rebuttal. Everybody takes a beating from time to time, and using a long gun against a short little pistol is not fair self defense.
Mr Binger do I see a run for congress in your future? Would you be ok if we went ahead and renamed Michigan school of law to the Thomas Binger school of law. We just want to be more clear about who we are and what we teach as attorneys. Duke wouldn't rename their law school, "The Mike Nifong," school of law because they're racist.
Last edited by ajax18 on Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
I think we’re back to the running a red light while being chased thing. Even if he’s trespassing everywhere due to violating curfew, that doesn’t really make sense that you lose your stand your ground privileges, especially since you were in fact retreating until your pursuer caught up to you. If you have to stand your ground because your pursuer caught up to you I don’t see how trespassing-based-on-a-curfew-violation ends that particular right of yours. I get your tactic, but I’m skeptical most courts would think a trespassing charge negates a strong right to self-defense position. But, maybe. I dunno. Has anything like that happened?
- Doc
It’s not a tactic. It’s what the stand your ground laws say.
All the stand your ground laws do is extend the castle doctrine to wherever you happen to be when faced with imminent death or serious bodily harm, as long as you have a right to be there. It’s a further limit on the duty to retreat. If you choose to retreat, stand your ground is basically irrelevant because you’ve satisfied any duty to retreat. So, in your scenario, the shooter hasn’t really lost anything.
The reasoning behind the requirement is that, if you are some place you have no right to be, you should be subject to whatever your state’s duty to retreat rule is. Only if you have a right to be where you are should you be excused from that duty.
Can you help us understand why the judge dismissed the curfew charge if there was a lawful order given by the sheriff in place? In other words, if the sheriff's natural authority gave him the right to invoke a curfew, why was the defense's motion to dismiss the curfew violation granted irrespective of the statute that was or wasn't cited by the prosecution (I'm not sure if they actually referenced a statute)?
