[Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law
Chasuk
chasuk at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 14:35:36 PDT 2013
There were no eyewitnesses, nor any CCTV footage. This means that we
have only Zimmerman's account of events, and only by virtue of having
survived. All I know is that if I had been trailed by someone unknown
in the dark, I might have perceived it as a threat, and I might have
responded preemptively by killing Zimmerman. Who knows, I might have
been able to convince a jury that I was merely "standing my ground."
Maybe I would have been telling the truth.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I had found that already, but thank you anyway. I was looking for the text
> of the 2006 law. I found it here:
> http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2006/S1441.html
>
> This law it appears makes a person who defended themselves in accordance
> with the section you posted and couple of others immune from civil action
> for the same offense. If I'm reading it correctly.
>
> Here is the statement of purpose copied from the bill:
>
> STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
>
> RS 16170
>
> The purpose of this legislation is to give a person immunity from
> civil action for using force to defend his life, family or
> property from those who would seek to harm them or for coming to
> the aid of another who is threatened. This in no way is intended
> to apply to if such force is used against law enforcement
> officers. It would also allow award of reasonable attorney's
> fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income and all
> expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of civil action if
> the court finds that the defendant is immune from such an action.
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>;
> Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:08 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law
>
> Courtesy of Title 18 (Crimes and Punishments), Chapter 40 (Homicides),
> Section 18-4009 (Justifiable Homicide By Any Person) of the Idaho Statutes
> at:
>
> http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH40SECT18-4009.htm
>
> ---------------------------------
> TITLE 18
> CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
> CHAPTER 40
> HOMICIDE
> 18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable
> when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
>
> 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony,
> or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
>
> 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one
> who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a
> felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent,
> riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the
> purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
>
> 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or
> husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when
> there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do
> some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being
> accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was
> made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and
> in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the
> homicide was committed; or,
>
> 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to
> apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing
> any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that Idaho had a "castle doctrine" law, not a
> "stand your ground" law per se. The difference being that you can stand
> your ground in your home, but not elsewhere. A quick search failed to turn
> up the text of this law, but it appears to have been passed in 2006.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> To: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law
>
> No takers on Idaho 'stand your ground' jury instructions that I posed below?
> I'm disappointed. It's mighty white of most of you to have concern for
> Florida's laws and not Idaho's laws on 'stand your ground'. And note that
> Zimmerman's defense invoked 'self defense' and not 'stand your ground'
> probably because Zimmerman wasn't standing. He'd been jumped, was laid out
> flat with has back on the ground, and being struck repeatedly by Trayvon
> Martin.
>
> Tom Hansen wrote:
> <It's Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that I furiously believe should be
> repealed before the next "Trayvon Martin".>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2013-August/092859.html
>
> -Scott
>
> ________________________________
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com; sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:43:09 -0600
> Subject: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law
>
> Tom wrote on Fri Jul 19 13:11:26 2013:
> <The way I interpret the Idaho [stand your ground] law is similar to Texas'
> law, that the perpetrator must be either on your property or attempting to
> enter your property.>
>
> This took me a while to get back to and I talked to one of my UI dorm mates
> who was an Idaho prosecutor for many years. Maybe Sunil who is also a
> former prosecutor can confirm, but this is what I've been informed are the
> current Idaho jury instructions regarding 'stand your ground':
>
> The jury instruction currently approved by the Idaho Supreme Court, based on
> Idaho's common law, is this: "In the exercise of the right of [self defense]
> [defense of another], one need not retreat. One may stand one's ground and
> defend [oneself] [the other person] by the use of all force and means which
> would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation
> and with similar knowledge[; and a person may pursue the attacker until [the
> person] [the other person] has been secured from danger if that course
> likewise appears reasonably necessary]. This law applies even though the
> person being [attacked] [defended] might more easily have gained safety by
> flight or by withdrawing from the scene."
>
> -Scott
>
> From thansen at moscow.com Fri Jul 19 13:11:26 2013
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:11:26 -0700
> Subject: [Vision2020] Vision2020 Digest, Vol 85, Issue 95
>
> The way I interpret the Idaho law is similar to Texas' law, that the
> perpetrator must be either on your property or attempting to enter your
> property.
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman530 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom et al,
>>
>> While Idaho's law isn't necessarily "stand your ground", I don't think you
>> have to be on your own property, but I believe you *do* have to prove that
>> you were in imminent danger of losing your life.
>>
>> DC
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:56, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly, Joe.
>>>
>>> The state of Florida has become the venue where the shoot-out at the OK
>>> Corral would be considered legal, provided that each side is in fear for
>>> their lives when they initially meet. There is no requirement for anybody
>>> to seek alternate actions to "ready-aim(optional)-fire".
>>>
>>> At least Idaho requires the threat to take place on your property when
>>> younpull the trigger.
>>>
>>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>>
>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>>
>>> - John Lennon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary,
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to pick on Zimmerman. Other than some superficial
>>>> understanding of the case, I know nothing about Mr. Zimmerman, no reason to
>>>> think he's racist or whatever. I also think that, were I a juror, I might
>>>> have found him innocent since -- as you note below -- there were no
>>>> eyewitnesses and thus reasonable doubt about his guilt. Again, I have only a
>>>> superficial understanding of the case.
>>>>
>>>> But the real story seems different than the one you tell below and based
>>>> on my understanding of the story I would say it sounds as if Mr. Zimmerman
>>>> is guilty of negligence leading to the death of a young man, at the very
>>>> least. Again, given the stand-your-ground law it is unlikely he can be
>>>> charged with anything.
>>>>
>>>> But that is what is so disturbing to me about the case. Likely Zimmerman
>>>> violated no laws. Maybe Zimmerman is not a racist but of course there are a
>>>> lot of racists. Maybe he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was
>>>> black but if you listen to the black men talking to Chris Matthews about
>>>> their experiences in the link I posted yesterday stories of black men being
>>>> suspected of wrongdoing merely because they are black are all too common.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/chris-matthews-apologizes-black-colleagues-behalf-white-people_n_3622703.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So here is the situation we have now, given the Zimmerman result. A
>>>> white man in Florida, armed with a gun, can get into a car and follow any
>>>> black kid he wants. If the black kid objects in a threatening way he can
>>>> shoot and kill him. Your tendency to disagree with anything that
>>>> progressives and liberals say must be pretty strong for you to look at this
>>>> story and not think that something is seriously wrong. Zimmerman is guilty
>>>> of something, maybe not in the eyes of crazy Florida law but at least in
>>>> some common sense moral way.
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list