[Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

[Scott Dredge]

  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.
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130928/06bdc0ba/attachment-0001.html>