Oh, crazy neighborhood watch guy was in his car "patrolling" when he saw the kid and called the police.

Yes, I do believe prosecution can use the fact that he got out of the car to confront the kid against him, even with a stand your ground law in effect. Stand your ground laws mean you don't have to make a reasonable effort to escape prior to defending yourself, you get to just defend yourself and others without worrying about some douche bag lawyer saying you could have crawled through the hedge and hidden. They don't mean you get to casually create a life threatening situation where one never would have existed had you not been stupid.

Doesn't it depend on the state? But that's why I added imo at the end. After calling 911 that there is a dangerous black man roaming around the neighborhood and the operator telling him not to follow him? Yeah, in that case he can't walk around in his own neighborhood with a gun killing unarmed people. But that's just my opinion.

well you've been wrong before, and this won't be the last time, so don't let it get you down.

When you're calling 911 about the scary guy in a hoody first, you're not "walking around the neighborhood". Come on now.

LDO in this specific case.

What rjoefish was implying is that no one has the right to be armed or to protect themselves and that they should run away and hide in their house if bad guys try to kill them or others.

facepalm.jpg again that is not what rjoe was saying and not what I was saying either. he was talking broadly about a duty to retreat.

are you sure about the bolded?

GA uses the term "Forcible Felony" which encompasses these specific offenses:

Murder
Armed Robbery (or Aggravated Assault, inclusive)
Kidnapping
Rape
Aggravated Child Molestation
Aggravated Sodomy
Aggravated Sexual Battery

Which I'm fine with. Now obviously it isn't good to legalize deadly force as a defense against simple battery. Sometimes Serious Felony and "Forcible Felony" are used interchangeably.

Although I agree you have to admit that you and I both know quite a few ways to kill someone with what could be considered "simple battery" and even a simple punch can easily kill if it hits right.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Coo...k&hbill=HF2215

Link to the Iowa bill.

I'm thinking simple battery may not apply.

Yeah man, walking to 7-Eleven to buy some skittles and an iced tea while being black is something im sure Trayvon would have loved to do differently in hindsight.

Yeah for some reason i doubt that he did nothing other than go to 711.

Maybe, I only know because the news report I read said specifically that in that state 9-1-1 operators' commands are legally suggestions and not lawful commands that have to be followed or however it's phrased.

I agree with the sentiment though.

Why's that?

those types of situations occur infrequently enough that they could be articulated in court.

Do please feel free to continue.

He went to get a drink and some sweets during the halftime of an NBA game.

That's not at all what I was trying to imply. I was trying to say that the authorities should be able to take into account, in this specific case at least, that this dude just saw a 'suspicious' person walking through the neighborhood and decided to follow/confront him after being told not to by police dispatchers.

Assault with 'serious' injury in Iowa is a felony. I'm not sure what constitutes 'serious' here as if you only cause 'bodily injury or mental illness' it's an aggravated misdemeanor.

I for one don't want to see legal ramifications attached to a refusal to obey a 911 operator.

It's just common sense. When a police officer is on scene, that's different because now you've got someone utilizing all of their senses to make decisions.

The only sense the 911 operator is using is audible.

This can only be said in a British accent, at least in my head.

Sounds like "Aggravated Battery" here, which constitutes permanent disfigurement.

I'm fine with that in that scenario.

So, what exactly is your problem with this bill? Is it because it includes felonious assault in it's definition of "violent felony"?

Pretty much. I doubt the law will really change anything TBH but there's like 12 gun law changes proposed by the same guy that I don't think are necessary.

I guess I just don't like making it easier for someone to get off killing someone they think was about to commit some of those actions.

Hmm...Iowa maybe different, but serious injury, at least when related to what constitutes felony assault, is typically synonymous with serious bodily injury/harm. Which is typically used to describe:

If this is how Iowa uses "serious injury" in their felony assault statute, then I have no problem with the law the way it's written. If by serious injury they mean any injury which requires medical attention, broken nose, stitches, and things like that, then this is a problem.

Yeah! In fact, where's Eric Holder's Department of Justice on posthumously prosecuting this kid for voter intimidation?

lol wow