sundaymorning wrote:You are not a lawyer.Thus, in the end, your opinions and Joe"s were equivalent observations from lay people. That is all. You have no more salient reasons why SYG has been used effectively in some cases and not others than he does.
You are not a rabbi. You are not even Jewish. Doing a few searches on Google is not enought to make you the expert on here. NOt even close...that religion is so complex even they don't know what all they believe.
I'd love to get you in a room with some really crack criminal lawyers and see you pull the same shit you pulled on Joe. Or a room full of rabbis, who would no doubt find your belief that you are the last word on Judaism amusing.
1) I don't have to be a lawyer the judge is though. Castle law may fit, abused spouse syndrome defense may fit, SYG fails per her own testimony of her actions. You can't "stand your ground" and leave. Do you think zimmerman would be able to use it had he gone back to his car, just because he had easier exits to leave.... which she also had prior to the shooting due to her actions and her testimony. I'm not the one failing to make my case here, I'm not overlooking anything like you do here to cling to SYG.
2) I'm not a rabbi and I don't have to be one either, judaism believes god is omnipotent, go look and get back to me with a cite when you find a jewish source that says he isn't. Not even the rabbit that tz used believe he wasn't. Or you can take a different tact and explain to us how a god of torah or christian biblical proportions (even allah of islam fits I've no doubt) isn't omnipotent but is still a god.
3) I'll glady take up your challenge on the lawyers, I'd have no problem with that, in this case I've no doubt I'd hold my own.
4) What is it that you want to cling to this SYG as her holy grail, it isn't. You can't make it apply given her testimony.
These are FAR more applicable for her.
Castle doctrine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to:
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.
The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[2] This was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "Englishman" from the phrase, which thereby became simply the Castle Doctrine.[2] The term has been used to imply a person's absolute right in England to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[3]
The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[4] The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, inviting a suspect to make himself liable to deadly retaliation by attacking Callahan.
Battered woman defense
The battered woman defense also referred to as battered woman syndrome is a defense used in court that the person accused of an assault / murder was suffering from battered person syndrome at the material time. Because the defense is most commonly used by women, it is usually characterised in court as battered woman syndrome or battered wife syndrome. There is currently no medical classification to support the existence of this "syndrome" in the sense used by lawyers, though it has historically been invoked in court systems. Although the condition is not gender-specific, the admission of evidence regarding battered woman syndrome as relevant the defense of self-defense is commonly understood as a response by some jurisdictions to perceived gender-bias in the criminal law. Thus, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons may refuse to press charges against their abuser, or refuse all offers of help, perhaps even becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. This has been problematic because there is no consensus in the medical profession that such abuse results in a mental condition severe enough to excuse alleged offenders. Nevertheless, the law makes reference to a psychological condition,[1] even though neither the DSM nor the ICD medical classification guides as currently drafted includes the syndrome in the sense used by lawyers.
