H- wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
Agreed on that- I'm still dumbfounded by how people continue to misunderstand "stand your ground." The article even lists the criteria under which deadly force would be authorized, and a guy running away with your laundry hamper isn't one of them. Apparently Alabama ain't Texas.
Still, good on the 11 year old for defending himself. I'm willing to go with "no harm, no foul" in this case.
Don't "stand your ground laws" codify a defense against battery offenses? They don't nullify existing common law defenses nor create an offense, right?
My point is that prosecutor could reasonably decide not to charge the boy with anything in this case and then the stand your ground law does not even come into play.
Correct. But, legally, what the boy did is criminal assault, at a minimum, and possibly even attempted murder. Attempted murder would be overkill and, certainly, prosecutorial discretion would justify not making such a charge. But this is a textbook assault.
A criminal assault may be rendered justifiable by such common law defenses such as self-defense. But self-defense certainly would not apply here b/c the intruder was fleeing. Also, self-defense cannot be used in a defense of property case, which is where the Castle Doctrine comes in. Stand Your Ground is not the same as the Castle Doctrine, but it looks like AL combines elements of the Castle Doctrine into the SYG law.
Criminal assault requires an intent element. I suppose a prosecutor could look at the age of the kid and decide the kid could not muster the requisite intent. But, that usually results in a referral to the juvenile court system, not just turning a blind eye.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR