Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

1105106108110111147

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, Zimmerman is a killer. He's admitted it. The question is, does the law think it's okay for an able bodied grown man of 30 years to kill a 17 year old unarmed kid for losing a fight? Especially considering the events that led up to said altercation are all, admittedly, in Zimmerman's court. Playing night stalker is going to lead to altercations, news at 11.

    Playing night stalker shouldn't lead to altercations.

    People should be fucking civilized and be much less quick to assault each other.

    Holy....o....m....g. How about being civilized enough to not stalk each other? Oh, and would you look at that. You're doing the same thing you've accused me of this entire time. My brother in law spit milk out of his nose at this post.

    To my knowledge, being night-stalked alone has never lead to permanent injury or death. Maybe that's a difference? But yes, is is also uncivilized. As is burglary, which apparently led to the night stalking. As is possession of what is likely stolen property, which while not directly related is ironic to me. Or maybe that's not irony. Fucking Alanis messing with my head.


    I've actually been permanently injured by a minor and short altercation with somebody. I've had friends that have been as well. So yeah, I consider physically assaulting somebody to be on a different level of uncivilization than mere "night stalking."

    It has in this case?

    No, the most likely scenario is that one party or the other unlawfully assaulted the other first. Hence not night stalking alone.

    mcdermott on
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I think using "stalk" is a bit of a loaded word and grossly over simplifies, and shifts, what happened.

    Following and tailing do not stalking make.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I think using "stalk" is a bit of a loaded word and grossly over simplifies, and shifts, what happened.

    Following and tailing do not stalking make.

    Of course. This usage is clearly intentional.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    MyDcmbr wrote: »
    I will break it down.
    (1) “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918 [FULL STOP] and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

    1) Firearms that use early type ignition systems made before 1919.
    2) Replicas of #1
    3) Firearms made before 1919 that use fixed ammunition that is not readily available or still made in the US.

    That is why a 1911 or a remake of it would not qualify.

    Really not trying to be pedantic - I'm just reading it as broken down differently:
    Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918 and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

    ....and because it says 'including' rather than being specifically limited to "firearms manufactured in or before 1918 which use a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar early type of ignition system".

    My reading of that is pretty close to yours.

    If it was manufactured prior to 1919, it qualifies.
    If it uses an older ignition system, it qualifies.
    If it uses a no longer manufactured ammunition that had first been manufactured before 1919, it qualifies.

    The real question is whether a modern produced 1911 qualifies as a replica or not. I would say it does not, as you can't produce a replica of something still in production, as doing so would qualify as a forgery. I suspect that question has already been dealt with in a trial and there's precedence (or another statute) that clarifies that.

    Your belief is not required
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Depends if the "original" 1911 is still in production. For instance, if it's gone through multiple revisions, is it the same pistol? Then, if the original manufacturer puts out "replicas" of the original model?

    It's an interesting question.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Aha, some googling and reading the rest of the statute has found me an explanation.
    790.01 Carrying concealed weapons

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person who carries a concealed weapon or electric weapon or device on or about his or her person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
    (2) A person who carries a concealed firearm on or about his or her person commits a felony of the third degree.
    (3) This section does not apply to a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon or a concealed firearm.


    790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm
    (2) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall issue a license if the applicant:
    (d) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm by virtue of having been convicted of a felony;

    Convicted felons cannot legally carry an antique firearm or any other weapon. However, it is only a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

    Your belief is not required
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    That seems strange.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    emp123 wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
    http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html
    mythago wrote: »
    California's law is NOT broader than Florida's. It doesn't provide civil immunity, and it doesn't allow the defendant - before any trial - to make a motion with a showing on "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, more likely than not), and get an easy shot at a self-defense claim before getting to make it all over again at trial. California doesn't allow pursuit, period; it allows pursuit IF reasonably necessary in order to defend oneself from the danger. (So, let's say I attack you with the obvious intent to kill, you fire at me, and I run around a corner to pick up a gun we both know is lying there. You have the right to pursue me to stop me from picking up that gun and killing you. You don't have the right to hunt me down if there's no further danger.) I don't see that Florida actually prohibits pursuit.

    I'd argue the Marissa Alexander case is an example of Florida prohibiting "pursuit". The judge in that case ruled that since she returned from the (locked) garage to the house, that she went from a safe area to a dangerous area, and therefore that was proof that she didn't feel threatened.

    CA's law and FL's law are each broader in different areas. Especially with how CA's law has been as much defined through case law as it has through legislative text. A 2005 CA court decision found that SYG was available even to people using illegally-owned guns - in that case, a convicted felon who shot a would-be attacker. Even though it's a felony for a convicted felon to even possess a gun under any other circumstance.

    Florida's SYG law has been interpreted to allow someone to pursue as well (guy chases thief for a block before stabbing him to death and gets off under SYG) so CA and FL law are similar in this regard (although I dont know how far you can pursue someone in CA).

    I'm aware of the case - I posted it here in March.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/22564674#Comment_22564674

    At the time I thought it was a ridiculous ruling, because media reports described Roteta (the guy who got stabbed) as essentially unarmed. The article in my March post says that Roteta had a pocketknife on him, but it was unopened.

    However, further googling since turns up this article.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

    in which Garcia (the stabber/defendant) states that Roteta swung a bag full of car stereos at his (Garcia's) head. Garcia says it was only after that attack by Roteta that he used the knife in self-defense. The article in my March post says nothing about this bag of radios.
    After more than a block, Garcia caught up with Roteta. Garcia’s defense attorney said Roteta swung a bag filled with three stolen car radios at Garcia’s head.

    At a hearing earlier this month, a “medical examiner conceded that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one’s head would lead to serious bodily injury or death,” Bloom wrote.

    As Garcia blocked the bag with his arm, he countered with a single, fatal knife thrust to the chest.

    Which raises the question of whether Garcia pursued in self-defense, or whether he pursued to get his radio back - after which a situation arose (Roteta swinging the bag) that necessitated self-defense.

    To compare it to the Zimmerman case - even if everything Zimmerman said is 100% true, he can't argue that the pursued Martin in self-defense. He pursued Martin for the same reason Garcia pursued Roteta - suspected criminal activity (though Zimmerman's suspicions were incorrect). It was only after Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin had ended that a situation (fistfight) arose that could have necessitated the need for lethal self-defense.
    As for using an illegal gun to defend yourself, why should that matter? And even if youre alleging self defense that doesnt get you out of other charges, so its possible that the ex-con who killed a dude was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.

    The possession of the weapon itself is a felony. If you kill someone while in the act of committing a felony (and felon-in-possession is normally a felony in CA), possibly even opening the door to Felony Murder charges. Felony Murder in CA does not require killing intent, it can be charged when a suspect's negligence during the commission of a felony causes a death.

    Except CA law explicitly goes out of its way to make it legal for the felon to use an illegally-possessed weapon in lethal self-defense.

    BubbaT on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
    http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html
    mythago wrote: »
    California's law is NOT broader than Florida's. It doesn't provide civil immunity, and it doesn't allow the defendant - before any trial - to make a motion with a showing on "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, more likely than not), and get an easy shot at a self-defense claim before getting to make it all over again at trial. California doesn't allow pursuit, period; it allows pursuit IF reasonably necessary in order to defend oneself from the danger. (So, let's say I attack you with the obvious intent to kill, you fire at me, and I run around a corner to pick up a gun we both know is lying there. You have the right to pursue me to stop me from picking up that gun and killing you. You don't have the right to hunt me down if there's no further danger.) I don't see that Florida actually prohibits pursuit.

    I'd argue the Marissa Alexander case is an example of Florida prohibiting "pursuit". The judge in that case ruled that since she returned from the (locked) garage to the house, that she went from a safe area to a dangerous area, and therefore that was proof that she didn't feel threatened.

    CA's law and FL's law are each broader in different areas. Especially with how CA's law has been as much defined through case law as it has through legislative text. A 2005 CA court decision found that SYG was available even to people using illegally-owned guns - in that case, a convicted felon who shot a would-be attacker. Even though it's a felony for a convicted felon to even possess a gun under any other circumstance.

    Florida's SYG law has been interpreted to allow someone to pursue as well (guy chases thief for a block before stabbing him to death and gets off under SYG) so CA and FL law are similar in this regard (although I dont know how far you can pursue someone in CA).

    I'm aware of the case - I posted it here in March.

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/22564674#Comment_22564674

    At the time I thought it was a ridiculous ruling, because media reports described Roteta (the guy who got stabbed) as essentially unarmed. The article in my March post says that Roteta had a pocketknife on him, but it was unopened.

    However, further googling since turns up this article.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

    in which Garcia (the stabber/defendant) states that Roteta swung a bag full of car stereos at his (Garcia's) head. Garcia says it was only after that attack by Roteta that he used the knife in self-defense. The article in my March post says nothing about this bag of radios.
    After more than a block, Garcia caught up with Roteta. Garcia’s defense attorney said Roteta swung a bag filled with three stolen car radios at Garcia’s head.

    At a hearing earlier this month, a “medical examiner conceded that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one’s head would lead to serious bodily injury or death,” Bloom wrote.

    As Garcia blocked the bag with his arm, he countered with a single, fatal knife thrust to the chest.

    Which raises the question of whether Garcia pursued in self-defense, or whether he pursued to get his radio back - after which a situation arose (Roteta swinging the bag) that necessitated self-defense.

    To compare it to the Zimmerman case - even if everything Zimmerman said is 100% true, he can't argue that the pursued Martin in self-defense. He pursued Martin for the same reason Garcia pursued Roteta - suspected criminal activity (though Zimmerman's suspicions were incorrect). It was only after Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin had ended that a situation (fistfight) arose that could have necessitated the need for lethal self-defense.

    Interesting. Unfortunately it doesnt really change things since it still makes the law seem crazy - the defendant grabbed a knife, chased down a man and stabbed him. If I was being chased by a man with a knife Id do everything I could to get away from him to. Unless being chased by a guy with a knife isnt a violent act thats likely to cause GBH.

    Regardless, when comparing Florida's right to pursue (or lack thereof) to California law I only see one case from 1895 that says you can pursue and that case involved a guy who found some horses and brought them to his house and then shot the man he thought was trying to steal them or something. I dont even see cases citing this, or instances of people successfully claiming self defense after chasing someone in news articles. I do however see CalCrim 506 which is a jury instruction that says
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    However thats an instruction under the Castle Doctrine rule which only applies within your house/car/place of work. Its possible Hecker (the case from 1895) is an early example of the Castle Doctrine in California and is not seen as a right to pursue outside of the house.
    BubbaT wrote: »
    As for using an illegal gun to defend yourself, why should that matter? And even if youre alleging self defense that doesnt get you out of other charges, so its possible that the ex-con who killed a dude was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.

    The possession of the weapon itself is a felony. If you kill someone while in the act of committing a felony (and felon-in-possession is normally a felony in CA), possibly even opening the door to Felony Murder charges. Felony Murder in CA does not require killing intent, it can be charged when a suspect's negligence during the commission of a felony causes a death.

    Except CA law explicitly goes out of its way to make it legal for the felon to use an illegally-possessed weapon in lethal self-defense.

    Felony homicide only applies to a specific group of felonies, of which ex-con in possession of a handgun is not one. In California these are codified in CPC §189 (basically a killing that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206 (torture), 286 (sodomy), 288 (sex with a minor), 288a (sex with a minor), or 289 (rape))

    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Interesting. Unfortunately it doesnt really change things since it still makes the law seem crazy - the defendant grabbed a knife, chased down a man and stabbed him. If I was being chased by a man with a knife Id do everything I could to get away from him to. Unless being chased by a guy with a knife isnt a violent act thats likely to cause GBH.

    Everything except drop the bag of stolen car stereos? Color me unsympathetic.

    As for pursuit in California, even if that does allow for pursuit outside the home (and it may) it only allows this insofar as it's reasonably necessary to avoid the death or bodily injury (or prevent the forcible felony).

  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Hunts Vegas, TXRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Interesting. Unfortunately it doesnt really change things since it still makes the law seem crazy - the defendant grabbed a knife, chased down a man and stabbed him. If I was being chased by a man with a knife Id do everything I could to get away from him to. Unless being chased by a guy with a knife isnt a violent act thats likely to cause GBH.

    Everything except drop the bag of stolen car stereos? Color me unsympathetic.

    As for pursuit in California, even if that does allow for pursuit outside the home (and it may) it only allows this insofar as it's reasonably necessary to avoid the death or bodily injury (or prevent the forcible felony).

    Yep. If the guy wasnt stealing a bunch of shit to begin with, he wouldve never been chased. Maybe if hed dropped his stolen goods or surrendered, he wouldnt have been stabbed. Instead, he used a weapon to try and keep the crap he'd stolen.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    Uhh, guys? We're trying to live in a society here, making it cool to for anyone to run down and kill thieves to stop them is the sort of thing that creates far more problems than it solves.

    Murdering a crook or scoundrel is still murder, and self defense exemptions should be for life and limb, not for protecting your car stereo.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Savant wrote: »
    Uhh, guys? We're trying to live in a society here, making it cool to for anyone to run down and kill thieves to stop them is the sort of thing that creates far more problems than it solves.

    Murdering a crook or scoundrel is still murder, and self defense exemptions should be for life and limb, not for protecting your car stereo.

    Except he didn't murder a "crook or a scoundrel."

    He "murdered" an attempted murderer.

    No intent, mind you, other than to inflict GBH weapon. But had he struck with his impromptu weapon, and had he killed the man pursuing him, pretty sure that'd have been murder under Florida law.

    Like, people like you always want to skip part of the chain, because it makes your little pacifist argument easier. He didn't chase down and stab a man because that man took his car stereo. He chased the man because his stereo was taken. He killed the man because that man tried to kill him. Maybe he'd have killed the guy anyway, who knows. But at the time he stabbed him, he was defending life and limb.

    I'm all for making it legal to run down a thief.

    And should that thief then attack you? I'm all for letting you legally kill that motherfucker. In self-defense. Because of the attacking, remember? Because you've already forgotten once. Might want to take a note, because it's an important part of the chain.

    Don't like it? Don't steal shit, then assault people who try to stop you from stealing shit.

  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    I was about to post how ridiculous SYG is in the radio-case, and the whole "stabbing to death. . ." until I saw it was one "fatal stab". I'm not an English major, but to me "stabbing. . ." has connotations of being plural.

    If dude was swung at with the bag of radios, and instinctively lunged the guy, it would be hard for me - as a judge - to not view that as Self Defense either. It's murder if the guy grabbed the knife for the purpose of murdering and not self defense in the act of retrieving stolen goods.

    Still not sure how SYG applies, though I'm not lawyer (and I hate "law-speak").

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited May 2012
    That's a tough distinction, Mcdermott, because the thief saw someone chasing him while brandishing a knife. If someone was chasing me with a knife out, I wouldn't be all "Uncle, man, uncle!" I'd either run, or defend myself with what I had available.

    Now, maybe the dude was trying to hurt so he could get away with being a thief, but it's just as likely he was trying to hurt so he wouldn't get stabbed. Committing a crime shouldn't deprive you of the right to self defence, despite what bloodthirsty vengeance some people may demand for petty theft, but calling it a wash when someone chases down a man and stabs him to death because the guy who is dead is guilty of theft is, to me, ridiculous.

    You may as well make it legal for any victim of any crime to kill the perpetrator. It has the same effect since there's no victim to say "No, I was defending myself from some crazy dude with a deadly weapon."

    EDIT: Basically, what I'm saying, is if you chase a thief while armed, and you kill that thief, you are guilty of manslaughter. If that thief tried to attack you and you claim self defence, at best it's considered a mitigating circumstance, but chasing someone should immediately invalidate the self defence argument.

    Nova_C on
    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: @IronsJonathan
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Uhh, guys? We're trying to live in a society here, making it cool to for anyone to run down and kill thieves to stop them is the sort of thing that creates far more problems than it solves.

    Murdering a crook or scoundrel is still murder, and self defense exemptions should be for life and limb, not for protecting your car stereo.

    Except he didn't murder a "crook or a scoundrel."

    He "murdered" an attempted murderer.

    No intent, mind you, other than to inflict GBH weapon. But had he struck with his impromptu weapon, and had he killed the man pursuing him, pretty sure that'd have been murder under Florida law.

    Like, people like you always want to skip part of the chain, because it makes your little pacifist argument easier. He didn't chase down and stab a man because that man took his car stereo. He chased the man because his stereo was taken. He killed the man because that man tried to kill him. Maybe he'd have killed the guy anyway, who knows. But at the time he stabbed him, he was defending life and limb.

    I'm all for making it legal to run down a thief.

    And should that thief then attack you? I'm all for letting you legally kill that motherfucker. In self-defense. Because of the attacking, remember? Because you've already forgotten once. Might want to take a note, because it's an important part of the chain.

    Don't like it? Don't steal shit, then assault people who try to stop you from stealing shit.

    I'm not very familiar with this case, but from reading the article, a guy catches another dude stealing and runs after him with a knife. Thief notices dude running at him with a deadly weapon and attempts to feebly defend himself with the bag (easily blocked) and then gets a knife in the chest.

    And that's... okay to you?

    SYG says that you don't have to retreat, but it doesn't seem to say anything about running after someone to kill them... especially when you weren't met with deadly force anyway?

    Florida is fucking crazy.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    That's a tough distinction, Mcdermott, because the thief saw someone chasing him while brandishing a knife. If someone was chasing me with a knife out, I wouldn't be all "Uncle, man, uncle!" I'd either run, or defend myself with what I had available.

    Now, maybe the dude was trying to hurt so he could get away with being a thief, but it's just as likely he was trying to hurt so he wouldn't get stabbed. Committing a crime shouldn't deprive you of the right to self defense, despite what bloodthirsty vengeance some people may demand for petty theft, but calling it a wash when someone chases down a man and stabs him to death because the guy who is dead is guilty of theft is, to me, ridiculous.

    You may as well make it legal for any victim of any crime to kill the perpetrator. It has the same effect since there's no victim to say "No, I was defending myself from some crazy dude with a deadly weapon."

    Well, under Florida law committing a forcible felony actually does deprive you of your right to self-defense. Like, you literally no longer get to defend yourself and (legally) have to depend on the good graces of those who are stopping you not to kill you in the process (that, and whatever "reasonable person" standards they may be legally restrained by).

    And I'm...mostly cool with that. If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get. Hopefully most people wouldn't see fit to kill you over a car stereo. But those that do? Oh well.

    Main question in this case is whether the crime involved was a forcible felony. If the entire act (the theft, flight, and turning to confront) is seen as continuous then it seems like it might be robbery. Since the use of force (or threat) involved in a robbery can be subsequent to the taking of the property, as long as it's seen as a continuous series of acts.

    So simultaneously he may have both had the right to defend himself (as he was not yet committing a forcible felony, and was being chased with what presumably was a visible deadly weapon) while at the same time the act of using violence then makes what he's doing a forcible felony. My feeling is that the self-defense statute "resolves" first, but I'd be interested in a court's take on it.

    SYG wouldn't apply, obviously, as he was engaging in an unlawful activity (the underlying theft). Irrelevant, obviously, as he had clearly attempted to fulfill his duty to retreat. Though I still say maybe if he'd dropped the stereos he'd have gotten away, so fuck him.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    I'm not very familiar with this case, but from reading the article, a guy catches another dude stealing and runs after him with a knife. Thief notices dude running at him with a deadly weapon and attempts to feebly defend himself with the bag (easily blocked) and then gets a knife in the chest.

    And that's... okay to you?

    SYG says that you don't have to retreat, but it doesn't seem to say anything about running after someone to kill them... especially when you weren't met with deadly force anyway?

    Um, I thought you said you read the article. They ruled that a bag of stereos to the head was deadly force. That's the thing. Regardless of how ridiculously manly you may think you are, I'll take the medical examiner's testimony over your opionion, thanks.

    And yeah, while I recognize some of the issues this may cause with innocent people getting caught up (like, potentially, Trayvon Martin) I am definitely in the abstract fine with a dirtbag robbing me being stabbed to death. Bye. You won't be missed. Actually, you will, because even dirtbags have family. But guess what, the feelings of your family aren't my concern, the answer to that problem is to not be a dirtbag so that the people you care about and who care about you won't have to go through that.

    Some dirtbags end up in jail. Others end up dead. Such is life.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    That's a tough distinction, Mcdermott, because the thief saw someone chasing him while brandishing a knife. If someone was chasing me with a knife out, I wouldn't be all "Uncle, man, uncle!" I'd either run, or defend myself with what I had available.

    Now, maybe the dude was trying to hurt so he could get away with being a thief, but it's just as likely he was trying to hurt so he wouldn't get stabbed. Committing a crime shouldn't deprive you of the right to self defense, despite what bloodthirsty vengeance some people may demand for petty theft, but calling it a wash when someone chases down a man and stabs him to death because the guy who is dead is guilty of theft is, to me, ridiculous.

    You may as well make it legal for any victim of any crime to kill the perpetrator. It has the same effect since there's no victim to say "No, I was defending myself from some crazy dude with a deadly weapon."

    Well, under Florida law committing a forcible felony actually does deprive you of your right to self-defense. Like, you literally no longer get to defend yourself and (legally) have to depend on the good graces of those who are stopping you not to kill you in the process (that, and whatever "reasonable person" standards they may be legally restrained by).

    And I'm...mostly cool with that. If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get. Hopefully most people wouldn't see fit to kill you over a car stereo. But those that do? Oh well.

    Main question in this case is whether the crime involved was a forcible felony. If the entire act (the theft, flight, and turning to confront) is seen as continuous then it seems like it might be robbery. Since the use of force (or threat) involved in a robbery can be subsequent to the taking of the property, as long as it's seen as a continuous series of acts.

    So simultaneously he may have both had the right to defend himself (as he was not yet committing a forcible felony, and was being chased with what presumably was a visible deadly weapon) while at the same time the act of using violence then makes what he's doing a forcible felony. My feeling is that the self-defense statute "resolves" first, but I'd be interested in a court's take on it.

    SYG wouldn't apply, obviously, as he was engaging in an unlawful activity (the underlying theft). Irrelevant, obviously, as he had clearly attempted to fulfill his duty to retreat. Though I still say maybe if he'd dropped the stereos he'd have gotten away, so fuck him.

    I think the article said it happened very fast and it was hard to see what happened on camera. So I'm envisioning it as a guy gets caught and bolts, gets chased and sees the other guy has a knife and is catching up to him. He swings the bag to try to fend the guy off and gets stabbed.

    To your last point, that is a bald declaration of the rights of vigilantes. People shouldn't lose all rights just because they're caught in the act of a crime that they haven't even been convicted of.

    It almost seems to me that you're saying when a person commits a criminal act that they cease to be "people" and are more on the "animal" scale of things in terms of how they should be treated. At least, it makes all your previous assertions with this case make a lot more sense.

    I'm really not seeing your "innocent until proven guilty!" and "due process for all!" here either. In fact, what you're advocating is the exact opposite of that.


    Derrick on
    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    To your last point, that is a bald declaration of the rights of vigilantes. People shouldn't lose all rights just because they're caught in the act of a crime that they haven't even been convicted of.

    Oh man this is some irony right here.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    It almost seems to me that you're saying when a person commits a criminal act that they cease to be "people" and are more on the "animal" scale of things in terms of how they should be treated. At least, it makes all your previous assertions with this case make a lot more sense.

    I'm really not seeing your "innocent until proven guilty!" and "due process for all!" here either. In fact, what you're advocating is the exact opposite of that.

    Actually, I believe I made it clear that I believe that were it to enter a courtroom, the thief's right to self-defense may well trump the progression to forcible felony (by the same use of force), giving him a legitimate claim to the use of force in self-defense.

    At the same time, unless the prosecution could show that the guy who chased him down grabbed the knife with the explicit intent of unlawfully killing him (rather than for the purpose of self-defense only if necessary) then he was also within his rights to pursue, and then given that use of force against himself he was within his rights to stab the dude.

    Unless there's some other statute or ruling regarding force during the commission of a theft (as opposed to robbery, a forcible felony) then basically this looks like a situation in which literally whichever one of them "won" the confrontation could be cleared of the killing. Though the dirtbag would still be on the hook for the theft.

    Also, my feelings on due process and the absolute value thereof apply to those apprehended after the commission of a crime. Those actually stopped in the act are a different story. If stopping a crime escalates to the use of force, and that results in a death of the perpetrator, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. And on a personal level, yeah fuck that dude.

    I think the case is interesting, because the guy who did the stabbing was probably "actually" guilty of murder or manslaughter, yet would be incredibly difficult to convict. Whereas unless I'm reading things wrong the guy who was killed was probably innocent in his use of force.

    However, by the "Zimmerman is ultimately responsible regardless of who started the fight because he started things off by 'stalking' Martin" standard, dumbass has only himself to blame for the knife in his chest. You know, from the whole jacking stereos thing.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    To your last point, that is a bald declaration of the rights of vigilantes. People shouldn't lose all rights just because they're caught in the act of a crime that they haven't even been convicted of.

    Oh man this is some irony right here.

    I shouldn't have to tell you that snide comments are not debate, Quid. You've been on this forum long enough.

    Kindly extrapolate.



    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • DraygoDraygo Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    People shouldn't lose all rights just because they're caught in the act of a crime that they haven't even been convicted of.

    So if the crime being committed is rape, and it happens in front of you, you are saying you have no right to use force to interfere and stop the crime?

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Draygo wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    People shouldn't lose all rights just because they're caught in the act of a crime that they haven't even been convicted of.

    So if the crime being committed is rape, and it happens in front of you, you are saying you have no right to use force to interfere and stop the crime?

    I believe that falls under "forcible felony" and one in which a person is in considerable danger whereas "petty theft" is not really either of those things.

    I am all for self defense, but it should be proportional to the threat. Kids shouldn't get shot because they stole a snicker bar from Wal-Mart. It's like people have no common sense anymore. Everything is zero tolerance and absolutes.

    Government by and for the least common denominator.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    That's a tough distinction, Mcdermott, because the thief saw someone chasing him while brandishing a knife. If someone was chasing me with a knife out, I wouldn't be all "Uncle, man, uncle!" I'd either run, or defend myself with what I had available.

    Now, maybe the dude was trying to hurt so he could get away with being a thief, but it's just as likely he was trying to hurt so he wouldn't get stabbed. Committing a crime shouldn't deprive you of the right to self defense, despite what bloodthirsty vengeance some people may demand for petty theft, but calling it a wash when someone chases down a man and stabs him to death because the guy who is dead is guilty of theft is, to me, ridiculous.

    You may as well make it legal for any victim of any crime to kill the perpetrator. It has the same effect since there's no victim to say "No, I was defending myself from some crazy dude with a deadly weapon."

    Well, under Florida law committing a forcible felony actually does deprive you of your right to self-defense. Like, you literally no longer get to defend yourself and (legally) have to depend on the good graces of those who are stopping you not to kill you in the process (that, and whatever "reasonable person" standards they may be legally restrained by).

    And I'm...mostly cool with that. If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get. Hopefully most people wouldn't see fit to kill you over a car stereo. But those that do? Oh well.

    Main question in this case is whether the crime involved was a forcible felony. If the entire act (the theft, flight, and turning to confront) is seen as continuous then it seems like it might be robbery. Since the use of force (or threat) involved in a robbery can be subsequent to the taking of the property, as long as it's seen as a continuous series of acts.

    So simultaneously he may have both had the right to defend himself (as he was not yet committing a forcible felony, and was being chased with what presumably was a visible deadly weapon) while at the same time the act of using violence then makes what he's doing a forcible felony. My feeling is that the self-defense statute "resolves" first, but I'd be interested in a court's take on it.

    SYG wouldn't apply, obviously, as he was engaging in an unlawful activity (the underlying theft). Irrelevant, obviously, as he had clearly attempted to fulfill his duty to retreat. Though I still say maybe if he'd dropped the stereos he'd have gotten away, so fuck him.

    This is fucking nuts. That you think car stereo theft (when the person being stolen from isn't in immediate proximity) grants a license to kill is something that I thought would have been relegated to the olden days in effectively lawless areas, like the old west. I just don't understand the mentality that not only allows a car stereo be turned into a life or death matter, but encodes into law that state of affairs. The thief certainly is not in the right, but chasing after someone with a knife is a very large escalation of violence, such that both sides can be in the wrong.

    Like I said, I can fully understand allowing people defending themselves or others from serious harm or death. But over something like this, it is simply barbaric.

    Savant on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    Draygo wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    People shouldn't lose all rights just because they're caught in the act of a crime that they haven't even been convicted of.

    So if the crime being committed is rape, and it happens in front of you, you are saying you have no right to use force to interfere and stop the crime?

    I believe that falls under "forcible felony" and one in which a person is in considerable danger whereas "petty theft" is not really either of those things.

    I am all for self defense, but it should be proportional to the threat. Kids shouldn't get shot because they stole a snicker bar from Wal-Mart. It's like people have no common sense anymore. Everything is zero tolerance and absolutes.

    Government by and for the least common denominator.

    Actually, you've been riding the absolute train about as hard as anybody. You're just in a different car.

    Also, stabbing somebody for swinging a blunt object at your head is proportional.

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    As far as I can tell, Mcdermot is advocating the idea that a criminal has voluntarily committed a crime, and as such, any repercussions thereof are solely on the criminal because he made that choice to do the crime.

    Including prison rape, abuse and torture by guards, starvation, and whatever else prisoners in medieval times were subjected to.

    I mean, hell, this attitude justifies capital punishment for any crime, since they criminal chose to remove themselves from civilized society, so whatever happens to them is their just desserts.

    The notion that you're putting forward, Mcdermot, is exactly the justification zealots are using for mandatory minimums and 3 strike laws that take someone with a gram of marijuana and puts them in prison for 20 years. It's fucking disgusting, is what it is. Committing a crime does not deprive oneself of one's humanity.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: @IronsJonathan
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Savant wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    That's a tough distinction, Mcdermott, because the thief saw someone chasing him while brandishing a knife. If someone was chasing me with a knife out, I wouldn't be all "Uncle, man, uncle!" I'd either run, or defend myself with what I had available.

    Now, maybe the dude was trying to hurt so he could get away with being a thief, but it's just as likely he was trying to hurt so he wouldn't get stabbed. Committing a crime shouldn't deprive you of the right to self defense, despite what bloodthirsty vengeance some people may demand for petty theft, but calling it a wash when someone chases down a man and stabs him to death because the guy who is dead is guilty of theft is, to me, ridiculous.

    You may as well make it legal for any victim of any crime to kill the perpetrator. It has the same effect since there's no victim to say "No, I was defending myself from some crazy dude with a deadly weapon."

    Well, under Florida law committing a forcible felony actually does deprive you of your right to self-defense. Like, you literally no longer get to defend yourself and (legally) have to depend on the good graces of those who are stopping you not to kill you in the process (that, and whatever "reasonable person" standards they may be legally restrained by).

    And I'm...mostly cool with that. If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get. Hopefully most people wouldn't see fit to kill you over a car stereo. But those that do? Oh well.

    Main question in this case is whether the crime involved was a forcible felony. If the entire act (the theft, flight, and turning to confront) is seen as continuous then it seems like it might be robbery. Since the use of force (or threat) involved in a robbery can be subsequent to the taking of the property, as long as it's seen as a continuous series of acts.

    So simultaneously he may have both had the right to defend himself (as he was not yet committing a forcible felony, and was being chased with what presumably was a visible deadly weapon) while at the same time the act of using violence then makes what he's doing a forcible felony. My feeling is that the self-defense statute "resolves" first, but I'd be interested in a court's take on it.

    SYG wouldn't apply, obviously, as he was engaging in an unlawful activity (the underlying theft). Irrelevant, obviously, as he had clearly attempted to fulfill his duty to retreat. Though I still say maybe if he'd dropped the stereos he'd have gotten away, so fuck him.

    This is fucking nuts. That you think car stereo theft (when the person being stolen from isn't in immediate proximity) grants a license to kill is something that I thought would have been relegated to the olden days in effectively lawless areas, like the old west. I just don't understand the mentality that not only allows a car stereo be turned into a life or death matter, but encodes into law that state of affairs.

    Like I said, I can fully understand allowing people defending themselves or others from serious harm or death. But over something like this, it is simply barbaric.

    Apparently the guy being stolen from was in immediate proximity. His stereo was one of those taken. Seems that makes him the one being stolen from, and being within chasin' down 'n stabbin' distance says pretty immediate proximity to me.

    And the law doesn't let you kill somebody to get your property back. It lets you pursue and use non-deadly force to get your property back. Only if the thief escalates do you get to use deadly force, in accordance with all the same "reasonableness" standards that apply anywhere else. Had the dirtbag just dropped the stereos, Stabby McVigilante would probably be in prison right now. I mean, assuming he was the type of dude to escalate to force and stab the guy anyway, which seems not entirely unlikely.

    Pardon me while I shed numerous tears over this outcome, though.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Apparently the guy being stolen from was in immediate proximity. His stereo was one of those taken. Seems that makes him the one being stolen from, and being within chasin' down 'n stabbin' distance says pretty immediate proximity to me.

    And the law doesn't let you kill somebody to get your property back. It lets you pursue and use non-deadly force to get your property back. Only if the thief escalates do you get to use deadly force, in accordance with all the same "reasonableness" standards that apply anywhere else. Had the dirtbag just dropped the stereos, Stabby McVigilante would probably be in prison right now. I mean, assuming he was the type of dude to escalate to force and stab the guy anyway, which seems not entirely unlikely.

    Pardon me while I shed numerous tears over this outcome, though.

    Yeah I'm not seeing the problem with responding to deadly force with deadly force. I'm not going to feel bad at stopping someone from trying to kill me. Perhaps if they did not want that they should not have decided that trying to severely injure me was such a good idea.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, Mcdermot is advocating the idea that a criminal has voluntarily committed a crime, and as such, any repercussions thereof are solely on the criminal because he made that choice to do the crime.

    Including prison rape, abuse and torture by guards, starvation, and whatever else prisoners in medieval times were subjected to.

    Actually, abuse by guards and rape within a prison where we have taken a responsibility to protect them is victimization by us, as the people. And thus completely unjustified. Also, probably one of the most shameful things we do as a nation.

    I mean, hell, this attitude justifies capital punishment for any crime, since they criminal chose to remove themselves from civilized society, so whatever happens to them is their just desserts.

    Actually, it only justifies capital punishment through the use of self-defense at the time the crime is being committed, if (and only if) the criminal chooses to use violence (or you reasonably believe such violence is imminent), and only if that violence poses a threat of death or great bodily harm.

    But sure, take it however you want, seems like you're having fun with it.

    The notion that you're putting forward, Mcdermot, is exactly the justification zealots are using for mandatory minimums and 3 strike laws that take someone with a gram of marijuana and puts them in prison for 20 years. It's fucking disgusting, is what it is. Committing a crime does not deprive oneself of one's humanity.

    Yup, that's me. I'm actually an alt of Joe Arpaio.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I mean, hell, this attitude justifies capital punishment for any crime, since they criminal chose to remove themselves from civilized society, so whatever happens to them is their just desserts.

    I mean, I'm certainly the one here throwing out ridiculous absolutes, mirite?

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get.

    That's what I'm talking about, Mcdermott. This is what people say to me when I say that people getting raped in prison is barbaric.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: @IronsJonathan
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Nova_C wrote: »
    If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get.

    That's what I'm talking about, Mcdermott. This is what people say to me when I say that people getting raped in prison is barbaric.

    Well, I'm not those people.

    Also:
    You wrote:
    I mean, hell, this attitude justifies capital punishment for any crime, since they criminal chose to remove themselves from civilized society, so whatever happens to them is their just desserts.

    "Forcible felonies" are not "any crime." It's in fact only a fairly small subset of crimes, most of which require violence against another person as an element of the crime, and the rest of which are highly likely to lead to such violence. We aren't talking about jaywalking or shoplifting a candy bar here.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Also, "you get what you get" in the context of the victim of your crime opting to defend themselves or their property, including through the use of deadly force if you opt to escalate with further violence (assuming you weren't already posing a threat of great bodily harm).

    Not through the brutalization of prisoners after the fact on my behalf.

    If you can't see the difference, well lolabsolutes.

    mcdermott on
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    This is from the original article. If there's more, I haven't seen it, and could use links, but:
    The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.

    Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.

    Not a forcible felony. Garcia was not in any danger when he armed himself with a knife and chased after Roteta.

    But Roteta got what he deserved, eh?

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: @IronsJonathan
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    This is from the original article. If there's more, I haven't seen it, and could use links, but:

    The incident took place on Jan. 25, when Roteta and another youth were behind Garcia’s apartment at 201 SW 18th Ct. According to police, Roteta was stealing Garcia’s truck radio.

    Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.

    Not a forcible felony. Garcia was not in any danger when he armed himself with a knife and chased after Roteta.

    True. Brandishing a knife and chasing after Garcia may well be an unlawful use of force. The question I have is would Garcia be breaking the law in chasing Roteta down unarmed? If not, then why should arming himself to defend himself during a potential conflict be illegal? Seems like it hinges entirely on Garcia's intent, which personally I think was probably unlawful. Good luck proving it, though.

    But Roteta got what he deserved, eh?

    You have no idea how much sleep I will lose over Roteta's death.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Admittedly, every time I get robbed I tip more towards the "just shoot them, that way you don't have to get sweaty chasing them" end of the scale.

    EDIT: Good luck figuring out if I'm being serious, and also even if serious where on that scale I personally fall.

    mcdermott on
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    Well, I won't either, but I don't lose sleep over the news in general, no matter how horrific, so there's that.

    The thing is, by assuming good faith on the part of someone arming themselves and giving chase, we're legalizing vigilantism. At what point does it become okay? Do we encourage deadly force in the defence or property, or do we expect people to take a step back and think about what they're doing? I'm all for option B, because option A is going to end up with people who key cars or draw happy faces in dust on windows getting shot.

    "But Judge, I thought they were trying to steal my car!"

    Or we can tell people that you do not get to use deadly force except if you're in immediate danger and putting yourself in danger disqualifies the self defence argument. Making the choice to chase a thief is basically saying you accept the risks and you are now fully responsible for the outcome. You don't like that? Fucking let the dude have your stereo, Jesus Christ. It's a fucking stereo.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: @IronsJonathan
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    That's a tough distinction, Mcdermott, because the thief saw someone chasing him while brandishing a knife. If someone was chasing me with a knife out, I wouldn't be all "Uncle, man, uncle!" I'd either run, or defend myself with what I had available.

    Now, maybe the dude was trying to hurt so he could get away with being a thief, but it's just as likely he was trying to hurt so he wouldn't get stabbed. Committing a crime shouldn't deprive you of the right to self defense, despite what bloodthirsty vengeance some people may demand for petty theft, but calling it a wash when someone chases down a man and stabs him to death because the guy who is dead is guilty of theft is, to me, ridiculous.

    You may as well make it legal for any victim of any crime to kill the perpetrator. It has the same effect since there's no victim to say "No, I was defending myself from some crazy dude with a deadly weapon."

    Well, under Florida law committing a forcible felony actually does deprive you of your right to self-defense. Like, you literally no longer get to defend yourself and (legally) have to depend on the good graces of those who are stopping you not to kill you in the process (that, and whatever "reasonable person" standards they may be legally restrained by).

    And I'm...mostly cool with that. If you choose to remove yourself from civilized society by committing a forcible felony, you get what you get. Hopefully most people wouldn't see fit to kill you over a car stereo. But those that do? Oh well.

    Main question in this case is whether the crime involved was a forcible felony. If the entire act (the theft, flight, and turning to confront) is seen as continuous then it seems like it might be robbery. Since the use of force (or threat) involved in a robbery can be subsequent to the taking of the property, as long as it's seen as a continuous series of acts.

    So simultaneously he may have both had the right to defend himself (as he was not yet committing a forcible felony, and was being chased with what presumably was a visible deadly weapon) while at the same time the act of using violence then makes what he's doing a forcible felony. My feeling is that the self-defense statute "resolves" first, but I'd be interested in a court's take on it.

    SYG wouldn't apply, obviously, as he was engaging in an unlawful activity (the underlying theft). Irrelevant, obviously, as he had clearly attempted to fulfill his duty to retreat. Though I still say maybe if he'd dropped the stereos he'd have gotten away, so fuck him.

    This is fucking nuts. That you think car stereo theft (when the person being stolen from isn't in immediate proximity) grants a license to kill is something that I thought would have been relegated to the olden days in effectively lawless areas, like the old west. I just don't understand the mentality that not only allows a car stereo be turned into a life or death matter, but encodes into law that state of affairs.

    Like I said, I can fully understand allowing people defending themselves or others from serious harm or death. But over something like this, it is simply barbaric.

    Apparently the guy being stolen from was in immediate proximity. His stereo was one of those taken. Seems that makes him the one being stolen from, and being within chasin' down 'n stabbin' distance says pretty immediate proximity to me.

    And the law doesn't let you kill somebody to get your property back. It lets you pursue and use non-deadly force to get your property back. Only if the thief escalates do you get to use deadly force, in accordance with all the same "reasonableness" standards that apply anywhere else. Had the dirtbag just dropped the stereos, Stabby McVigilante would probably be in prison right now. I mean, assuming he was the type of dude to escalate to force and stab the guy anyway, which seems not entirely unlikely.

    Pardon me while I shed numerous tears over this outcome, though.

    Chasing a guy with a knife is a bit more than "non-deadly" force. And the whole "he swung the bag of radios at my head" was a claim made by the defense. But the defendant and his cohort had made provable lies in previous statements of what happened as well as changing the story, such as saying the robber having a knife out during the incident, when his dead body was only found with a closed one in his pocket.

    That was good enough for the judge to rule self defense acquittal, without the whole annoying part of having a jury evaluate the facts of the case. But a badguy got his due with the stabbing and all, so that's all right? Pay no attention to the fact that stabber did not alert the authorities, hid the knife, and sold off some of the radios he claimed from dead robber.

    Like I said, I find your standpoint on these matters to be at least somewhat barbaric. You seem to be happy about letting folks get away with escalating confrontations to the use of deadly force, rather than lamenting the fact that due to the imperfections of the legal system that we have to let some of the guilty go in order to protect the innocent.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I mean, hell, this attitude justifies capital punishment for any crime, since they criminal chose to remove themselves from civilized society, so whatever happens to them is their just desserts.

    I mean, I'm certainly the one here throwing out ridiculous absolutes, mirite?

    Being churlish does not help your case. Don't be a dick.

    Savant on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Well, I won't either, but I don't lose sleep over the news in general, no matter how horrific, so there's that.

    The thing is, by assuming good faith on the part of someone arming themselves and giving chase, we're legalizing vigilantism. At what point does it become okay? Do we encourage deadly force in the defence or property, or do we expect people to take a step back and think about what they're doing? I'm all for option B, because option A is going to end up with people who key cars or draw happy faces in dust on windows getting shot.

    "But Judge, I thought they were trying to steal my car!"

    I'm willing to accept "getting shot" as a risk of keying somebody's car. Drawing happy faces in dust, however, should be protected.

    And nobody, and I do mean nobody, in this thread is advocating shooting people over vandalism. But if you confront the vandal, and they try to kill you? Yup. Done.

    So more "judge, I thought they were trying to steal my car then they totally assaulted the shit out of me." A subtle difference, I guess. Wait, no, not subtle at all.

    Or we can tell people that you do not get to use deadly force except if you're in immediate danger and putting yourself in danger disqualifies the self defence argument. Making the choice to chase a thief is basically saying you accept the risks and you are now fully responsible for the outcome. You don't like that? Fucking let the dude have your stereo, Jesus Christ. It's a fucking stereo.

    No, that dude cannot have my stereo. Fuck that dude. Make you a deal. He steals my stereo, he can have it, but only if you buy me a new one. Otherwise, you can take your decisions regarding the disposition of my stereo and...well, post them on an internet forum, and watch me tell you that I don't agree and thank god the law in many states is on my side and not yours.

This discussion has been closed.