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.
Except, you know, if the thief had actually killed the defendant, he probably would have pled guilty to theft and would have had the murder charges (if they were ever brought) dropped because he was being chased down by a dude with a fucking knife. Apparently, acting in self defense to save your life (you know, because its reasonable to believe that a dude who is chasing you with a knife is going to put your in imminent danger/GBH) and failing (because you miss) allows the person who put you in the position to act in self defense to act in his self defense and kill you. Justified homicide, fuck yeah.
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 just wrong, committing crimes doesnt prevent SYG from applying. You can still claim self defense under SYG and win, you just wont be immune from criminal and/or civil proceedings (so instead of filing a motion and skipping court, you have to go to court and prove your case to a jury or judge depending on what you (and the prosecutor) want. Actually, even that is sort of wrong, since you can still be immune from prosecution/civil suit if you attempt to stand down before the other person "makes you" kill them (so if you start a fight and they produce a knife and you back down and then they try to stab you, you can shoot them and still be immune).
Also, breaking into an empty vehicle is not a forcible felony.
Look, I get that you have recently been the victim of a robbery and that shit sucks, but its totally clouding your judgment here. I get it. Ive had shit stolen too, it sucks, its upsetting, you feel violated and fuck those assholes, but those assholes are still people.
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.
Well, I'm happy to agree to disagree and be happy that the law in Canada is on my side and not yours.
I'm also pretty happy that violent crime in Canada is significantly less than the US, so that probably contributes to the notion here that this isn't the wild west.
EDIT: PS. No, I won't pay for your stereo because fuck you and your belief that your stereo is more important than somebody's life.
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 found with a closed 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.
Do I need to reiterate the part where I think Stabby McVigilante is probably guilty of a crime? But that proving it beyond reasonable doubt would be a long shot (which is presumably the reason the judge ruled in his favor)?
So yes, our justice system forces us to let the dude go. The only two options are to do away with the current burden of proof, which is obviously no bueno, or change the laws so that I have to wave bye bye and wish thieves good fortune as they run off with my Xbox. And fuck that too. As it is, I'm comfortable with this outcome, even though Garcia sounds like a dirtbag too.
You are advocating vigilantism. Completely. You do not "confront" someone with a deadly weapon. You ASSAULT someone with a deadly weapon. Period.
So far as a bag with a few radios being a proportional threat to a knife in the chest- fuck off. You might as well start arguing Detharin's one-punch-TNT-Explosion bullshit.
You do realize that by your own admissions in this thread that you, yourself should have been killed by your own ethos in attacking someone with a blunt object, right? Did you deserve to die over that? Wife widowed? Kids growing up without a father? Or can you really just not place yourself in that position?
Because it seems to me, by calling people dirtbags and what not that you're really just trying to dehumanize them and make the awful shit that was done to them okay. That's classic thinking right there. Nazis, lynch mobs and modern day skinheads are all in equal agreement with you there.
Are you proud of that?
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
But that proving it beyond reasonable doubt would be a long shot
I think this is where we're stuck, because I see this as the end result of all such cases. Lacking witness, anyone can say, "I was chasing him while screaming like a banshee and waving a claymore, but I just wanted my stuff back. The dude tried to punch me so I decapitated him. Total self defence. Honest." While I'm being facetious, the gist is that it gives carte blanche to kill a thief because all you have to say is the thief tried to attack you and it requires no proof for you to get off scott free.
In this case, we should defer to the manslaughter charge as a baseline and go up from there.
This is just wrong, committing crimes doesnt prevent SYG from applying. You can still claim self defense under SYG and win, you just wont be immune from criminal and/or civil proceedings (so instead of filing a motion and skipping court, you have to go to court and prove your case to a jury or judge depending on what you (and the prosecutor) want. Actually, even that is sort of wrong, since you can still be immune from prosecution/civil suit if you attempt to stand down before the other person "makes you" kill them (so if you start a fight and they produce a knife and you back down and then they try to stab you, you can shoot them and still be immune).
Also, breaking into an empty vehicle is not a forcible felony.
Am I reading this wrong?
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
That doesn't say forcible felony, or even felony. Stealing stereos is, last I checked, an unlawful activity. I'm pretty sure SYG wouldn't apply to Roteta.
Irrelevant, since dirtbag guy clearly met his duty to retreat.
Look, I get that you have recently been the victim of a robbery and that shit sucks, but its totally clouding your judgment here. I get it. Ive had shit stolen too, it sucks, its upsetting, you feel violated and fuck those assholes, but those assholes are still people.
Dude, that robbery happened mid-thread. I don't feel like my position has changed. But I've been the victim of robberies and assaults in the past as well.
I'll point out that I still only support the legal use of force against dirtbags if they use force first. I believe I stated long ago that I felt the whole "use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony" was probably overly broad, since at least some of the forcible felonies that qualify don't have harm or attempted harm to another person as an element.
You are advocating vigilantism. Completely. You do not "confront" someone with a deadly weapon. You ASSAULT someone with a deadly weapon. Period.
So far as a bag with a few radios being a proportional threat to a knife in the chest- fuck off. You might as well start arguing Detharin's one-punch-TNT-Explosion bullshit.
Again, the medical examiner disagreed. Also, common sense. A bag of stereos to the head is clearly a threat of GBH or death.
You do realize that by your own admissions in this thread that you, yourself should have been killed by your own ethos in attacking someone with a blunt object, right? Did you deserve to die over that? Wife widowed? Kids growing up without a father? Or can you really just not place yourself in that position?
Dude, I don't care about your dad. If somebody had shot him for starting fights, I'd have been cool with that. Also, I didn't have a wife or kids back when I did the stupid things I did. Though I'm sure my mom would have grieved for me if somebody had used deadly force to stop me. But no, I wouldn't have expected anybody else who didn't personally care about me to shed too many tears. Because yes, at that moment I was acting like an uncivilized fucking savage.
Because it seems to me, by calling people dirtbags and what not that you're really just trying to dehumanize them and make the awful shit that was done to them okay. That's classic thinking right there. Nazis, lynch mobs and modern day skinheads are all in equal agreement with you there.
But that proving it beyond reasonable doubt would be a long shot
I think this is where we're stuck, because I see this as the end result of all such cases. Lacking witness, anyone can say, "I was chasing him while screaming like a banshee and waving a claymore, but I just wanted my stuff back. The dude tried to punch me so I decapitated him. Total self defence. Honest." While I'm being facetious, the gist is that it gives carte blanche to kill a thief because all you have to say is the thief tried to attack you and it requires no proof for you to get off scott free.
In this case, we should defer to the manslaughter charge as a baseline and go up from there.
Anyone can say that, sure. Yet still, it doesn't happen all that often. Maybe because there's always the risk that there was a witness (or some kind of nearby camera), so most people don't automatically go for The Perfect Crime(TM). And some fail to get away with it. But some do, sure.
Some crimes be tough to prosecute. This does not always mean changing the law is necessary.
This is just wrong, committing crimes doesnt prevent SYG from applying. You can still claim self defense under SYG and win, you just wont be immune from criminal and/or civil proceedings (so instead of filing a motion and skipping court, you have to go to court and prove your case to a jury or judge depending on what you (and the prosecutor) want. Actually, even that is sort of wrong, since you can still be immune from prosecution/civil suit if you attempt to stand down before the other person "makes you" kill them (so if you start a fight and they produce a knife and you back down and then they try to stab you, you can shoot them and still be immune).
Also, breaking into an empty vehicle is not a forcible felony.
Am I reading this wrong?
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
That doesn't say forcible felony, or even felony. Stealing stereos is, last I checked, an unlawful activity. I'm pretty sure SYG wouldn't apply to Roteta.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Regardless, if I was his defense attorney I would argue that the theft had already occurred and therefore he was not at the time he was confronted by the defendant engaged in unlawful activity (although, I guess possession of stolen property and potentially a deadly weapon depending on the size of the knife). Which makes me wonder, if youre drunk in public and are threatened with immenent harm/GBH and kill the person who is attacking you, are you no longer able to claim self defense? What if you get drunk and youre about to get raped and you kill the person trying to rape you (unless that doesnt count as GBH), can you no longer claim self defense under SYG? (if so, this law gets even more ridiculous).
Look, I get that you have recently been the victim of a robbery and that shit sucks, but its totally clouding your judgment here. I get it. Ive had shit stolen too, it sucks, its upsetting, you feel violated and fuck those assholes, but those assholes are still people.
Dude, that robbery happened mid-thread. I don't feel like my position has changed. But I've been the victim of robberies and assaults in the past as well.
I'll point out that I still only support the legal use of force against dirtbags if they use force first. I believe I stated long ago that I felt the whole "use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony" was probably overly broad, since at least some of the forcible felonies that qualify don't have harm or attempted harm to another person as an element.
I was specifically referring to your comments regarding this particular case and not the Zimmerman case (where I think we agree on the outcome should it go to trial, but differ on basically everything else, hahaha).
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
That doesn't say forcible felony, or even felony. Stealing stereos is, last I checked, an unlawful activity. I'm pretty sure SYG wouldn't apply to Roteta.
Irrelevant, since dirtbag guy clearly met his duty to retreat.
This is the whole petty crime granting a license to kill thing, which I find abhorrent if that is what the law really means. I'm not so sure of that though, that simply says that if you are behaving lawfully and are attacked you can defend yourself lawfully without retreating. It doesn't say "however if you are attacked while behaving unlawfully, you are fair game!" nor "if someone is behaving unlawfully you get to chase after them with a knife!" I don't think those particular circumstances are covered by that section of the law.
Your attitude of being just fine with people getting killed over petty matters really makes it seem like you are approaching this with a barbaric mindset. It makes me doubtful that common ground can be found discussing this.
Im assuming that aggressor in this section covers those committing crimes, since assault is a crime. Regardless, if I was his defense attorney I would argue that the theft had already occurred and therefore he was not at the time he was confronted by the defendant engaged in unlawful activity (although, I guess possession of stolen property and potentially a deadly weapon depending on the size of the knife).
Escaping with the stereos is clearly still a part of the same series of actions that constitute the crime, so he's obviously still engaged in an unlawful activity.
It has nothing to do with the "aggressor." That statute doesn't apply here.
Which makes me wonder, if youre drunk in public and are threatened with immenent harm/GBH and kill the person who is attacking you, are you no longer able to claim self defense? What if you get drunk and youre about to get raped and you kill the person trying to rape you (unless that doesnt count as GBH), can you no longer claim self defense under SYG? (if so, this law gets even more ridiculous).
Rape is GBH, for starters. Beyond that, I have no idea what qualifies as an "unlawful activity," or if that unlawful activity has to be at least tangentially related to the use of force (for instance, using force to get away with stereos). It is indeed possible, under a strict reading of the statute, that being drunk in public would be an unlawful activity, and thus a rape victim could no longer claim SYG protection. They would still be able to use force in self-defense, however, they'd just be subject to the previous duty to retreat if possible...and color me skeptical that they'd be convicted based on that.
But yeah, I get the feeling you'd need to dig into case law to answer that "unlawful activity" question. I'd be interested.
Irrelevant, since dirtbag guy clearly met his duty to retreat.
Which one was the dirtbag again? The dead guy who was running or the dude who stabbed him to death?
Dirtbag is the stereo thief. The other guy is a dirtbag too, but I've dubbed him Stabby McVigilante. You can decide whether the generic pejorative or the judgmental nickname is more dehumanizing.
Look, I get that you have recently been the victim of a robbery and that shit sucks, but its totally clouding your judgment here. I get it. Ive had shit stolen too, it sucks, its upsetting, you feel violated and fuck those assholes, but those assholes are still people.
Dude, that robbery happened mid-thread. I don't feel like my position has changed. But I've been the victim of robberies and assaults in the past as well.
I'll point out that I still only support the legal use of force against dirtbags if they use force first. I believe I stated long ago that I felt the whole "use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony" was probably overly broad, since at least some of the forcible felonies that qualify don't have harm or attempted harm to another person as an element.
I was specifically referring to your comments regarding this particular case and not the Zimmerman case (where I think we agree on the outcome should it go to trial, but differ on basically everything else, hahaha).
I'd be fine with Zimmerman's case being dismissed for failing to meet preponderance, though going to trial is fine with me too.
And no, my views didn't really change when we got robbed. I was already pretty firm on self-defense earlier in the thread, and I've always been pretty pro-property-rights when it comes to stopping people from taking my stuff. I can get admittedly a bit Randian on that subject. Like, I'm all about a legitimately elected government taking my money through taxation and redistributing it, but some dipshit thinks he can just bust my window and take my things? Oh hell no.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
It's not a blind spot at all. I've said once, twice, three times (a lady) that I'm pretty sure Garcia (or whatever his name was) was probably legally in the wrong in his actions.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
That doesn't say forcible felony, or even felony. Stealing stereos is, last I checked, an unlawful activity. I'm pretty sure SYG wouldn't apply to Roteta.
Irrelevant, since dirtbag guy clearly met his duty to retreat.
This is the whole petty crime granting a license to kill thing, which I find abhorrent if that is what the law really means. I'm not so sure of that though, that simply says that if you are behaving lawfully and are attacked you can defend yourself lawfully without retreating. It doesn't say "however if you are attacked while behaving unlawfully, you are fair game!"
Correct, as I've said repeatedly you have the right to defend yourself even if breaking the law, you simply have a duty to retreat. Which Ret...dirtbag met.
The only time you lose your right to defend yourself legally full stop is if you are committing a forcible felony.
nor "if someone is behaving unlawfully you get to chase after them with a knife!" I don't think those particular circumstances are covered by that section of the law.
Actually they seem to be, the issue is more likely burden of proof.
Your attitude of being just fine with people getting killed over petty matters really makes it seem like you are approaching this with a barbaric mindset. It makes me doubtful that common ground can be found discussing this.
My attitude is basically that by committing a barbaric act (and stealing my shit is a barbaric act) you have essentially chosen to create a little pocket of barbarism around yourself. And I will not be the least bit sad, no, if something barbaric happens to you as a result. But if we apprehend you, and get you back into a nice civilized courtroom, you should still have all the rights and protections you are entitled to. Same once we ship you off to prison (since we shouldn't be running our own little barbaric colonies, not if we want to pretend to be civilized).
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony
That doesn't say forcible felony, or even felony. Stealing stereos is, last I checked, an unlawful activity. I'm pretty sure SYG wouldn't apply to Roteta.
Irrelevant, since dirtbag guy clearly met his duty to retreat.
This is the whole petty crime granting a license to kill thing, which I find abhorrent if that is what the law really means. I'm not so sure of that though, that simply says that if you are behaving lawfully and are attacked you can defend yourself lawfully without retreating. It doesn't say "however if you are attacked while behaving unlawfully, you are fair game!"
Like, is there some confusion about the fact that Stand Your Ground (or rather the one section of the law referred to as such) is not the entirety of your right to self-defense? Just because you can't claim protection under SYG does not mean you cannot defend yourself...it just means you have the duty to retreat (if reasonably possible), as set out in previous Florida case law.
The only time you lose all legal self-defense claim is in the commission of a forcible felony. I hope I don't have to explain why, in principle, that makes perfect sense. A couple crimes defined as forcible felonies may make this problematic, but it's not absurd on its face.
Im assuming that aggressor in this section covers those committing crimes, since assault is a crime. Regardless, if I was his defense attorney I would argue that the theft had already occurred and therefore he was not at the time he was confronted by the defendant engaged in unlawful activity (although, I guess possession of stolen property and potentially a deadly weapon depending on the size of the knife).
Escaping with the stereos is clearly still a part of the same series of actions that constitute the crime, so he's obviously still engaged in an unlawful activity.
It has nothing to do with the "aggressor." That statute doesn't apply here.
But it does because the statute I cited defines aggressor as
a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
Whether petty theft is a forcible felony under Florida law remains to be seen (because Im too lazy to look it up, but either way if it allows someone who is committing a forcible felony to claim self-defense (and get its immunity) if they back down, I would be incredibly surprised if it didnt do the same for non-felonies (which I assume the dead guy was guilty of)).
Which makes me wonder, if youre drunk in public and are threatened with immenent harm/GBH and kill the person who is attacking you, are you no longer able to claim self defense? What if you get drunk and youre about to get raped and you kill the person trying to rape you (unless that doesnt count as GBH), can you no longer claim self defense under SYG? (if so, this law gets even more ridiculous).
Rape is GBH, for starters. Beyond that, I have no idea what qualifies as an "unlawful activity," or if that unlawful activity has to be at least tangentially related to the use of force (for instance, using force to get away with stereos). It is indeed possible, under a strict reading of the statute, that being drunk in public would be an unlawful activity, and thus a rape victim could no longer claim SYG protection. They would still be able to use force in self-defense, however, they'd just be subject to the previous duty to retreat if possible...and color me skeptical that they'd be convicted based on that.
But yeah, I get the feeling you'd need to dig into case law to answer that "unlawful activity" question. I'd be interested.
Yeah, I assumed rape would be GBH, I mean, come on, its rape.
Maybe I'll look into it on Thursday...I should be sleeping now and I have my final final (ever) on Wednesday so...
Look, I get that you have recently been the victim of a robbery and that shit sucks, but its totally clouding your judgment here. I get it. Ive had shit stolen too, it sucks, its upsetting, you feel violated and fuck those assholes, but those assholes are still people.
Dude, that robbery happened mid-thread. I don't feel like my position has changed. But I've been the victim of robberies and assaults in the past as well.
I'll point out that I still only support the legal use of force against dirtbags if they use force first. I believe I stated long ago that I felt the whole "use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony" was probably overly broad, since at least some of the forcible felonies that qualify don't have harm or attempted harm to another person as an element.
I was specifically referring to your comments regarding this particular case and not the Zimmerman case (where I think we agree on the outcome should it go to trial, but differ on basically everything else, hahaha).
I'd be fine with Zimmerman's case being dismissed for failing to meet preponderance, though going to trial is fine with me too.
And no, my views didn't really change when we got robbed. I was already pretty firm on self-defense earlier in the thread, and I've always been pretty pro-property-rights when it comes to stopping people from taking my stuff. I can get admittedly a bit Randian on that subject. Like, I'm all about a legitimately elected government taking my money through taxation and redistributing it, but some dipshit thinks he can just bust my window and take my things? Oh hell no.
Well, from the outside looking in there seems to have been a tonal change. Maybe the ideas havent changed, but their application has? Prior to this your ideas seemed reasonable although I disagreed but regarding this case theyve seemed intensified? I dunno, whatever, its irrelevant.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
Exactly. At that point, it is the knife wielder committing the crime (assault with a deadly weapon) that the victim (thief) has every right to defend himself from.
Im assuming that aggressor in this section covers those committing crimes, since assault is a crime. Regardless, if I was his defense attorney I would argue that the theft had already occurred and therefore he was not at the time he was confronted by the defendant engaged in unlawful activity (although, I guess possession of stolen property and potentially a deadly weapon depending on the size of the knife).
Escaping with the stereos is clearly still a part of the same series of actions that constitute the crime, so he's obviously still engaged in an unlawful activity.
It has nothing to do with the "aggressor." That statute doesn't apply here.
But it does because the statute I cited defines aggressor as
a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
Whether petty theft is a forcible felony under Florida law remains to be seen (because Im too lazy to look it up, but either way if it allows someone who is committing a forcible felony to claim self-defense (and get its immunity) if they back down, I would be incredibly surprised if it didnt do the same for non-felonies (which I assume the dead guy was guilty of)).
I looked, and petty theft isn't a forcible felony...that's why I was saying that. Theft is only a forcible felony if it elevates to robbery, which has the use of threat or violence before, during, or after the taking as an element.
That's why I was curious earlier because the use of force by the guy stealing the stereo could either be seen as elevation to robbery (disqualifying him from being able to use self-defense at all) or self-defense (against the dude with the knife). I lean towards the latter. But to put it in nerd terms, it's a matter of which "resolves" first...because he's definitely still actively participating in the commission of the theft.
Well, from the outside looking in there seems to have been a tonal change. Maybe the ideas havent changed, but their application has? Prior to this your ideas seemed reasonable although I disagreed but regarding this case theyve seemed intensified? I dunno, whatever, its irrelevant.
It could be the fact that this thread is, for the most part, me, two or three people that disagree with me, and a half dozen people who think I'm a barbaric and cowardly nazi.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
Exactly. At that point, it is the knife wielder committing the crime (assault with a deadly weapon) that the victim (thief) has every right to defend himself from.
Okay, put the knife in the pocket of the pursuer (edit: then pulled out and used after the assault by the pursued). Does this change anything?
Because we're also arguing principles here, not just the facts of this specific case (which I agree may support charges against Garcia).
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
It's not a blind spot at all. I've said once, twice, three times (a lady) that I'm pretty sure Garcia (or whatever his name was) was probably legally in the wrong in his actions.
But you sure seem happy with how the whole thing turned out, judge giving an easy acquittal to stabber without a full trial, and thief being quite dead. You are all over the place, saying one thing while implying another.
Do you not see anything wrong with "this guy is probably guilty, but it might be hard to prove, so fuck it he gets a complete acquittal without a full trial to determine the facts and he is now immune to any further criminal or civil proceedings on the matter?" Because if that's fine with you, Florida seems to have things a OK!
My attitude is basically that by committing a barbaric act (and stealing my shit is a barbaric act) you have essentially chosen to create a little pocket of barbarism around yourself. And I will not be the least bit sad, no, if something barbaric happens to you as a result. But if we apprehend you, and get you back into a nice civilized courtroom, you should still have all the rights and protections you are entitled to. Same once we ship you off to prison (since we shouldn't be running our own little barbaric colonies, not if we want to pretend to be civilized).
I find that to be a pretty bad attitude, myself. Maybe you can feel a bit of schadenfreude if a guy who robs you gets offed, but that is not something worth building any sort of moral principles around. Nor a system of law.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
Exactly. At that point, it is the knife wielder committing the crime (assault with a deadly weapon) that the victim (thief) has every right to defend himself from.
Okay, put the knife in the pocket of the pursuer. Does this change anything?
Because we're also arguing principles here, not just the facts of this specific case (which I agree may support charges against Garcia).
Uh, yes, that does change things quite a bit. If he pursues the robber with a knife in his pocket, is attacked by the robber after he catches up then busts out the knife to fight back that changes the calculus a lot. Clearly the knife was out before then according to the stabber because he said he parried the radio bag in the same motion as stabbing the robber.
Im assuming that aggressor in this section covers those committing crimes, since assault is a crime. Regardless, if I was his defense attorney I would argue that the theft had already occurred and therefore he was not at the time he was confronted by the defendant engaged in unlawful activity (although, I guess possession of stolen property and potentially a deadly weapon depending on the size of the knife).
Escaping with the stereos is clearly still a part of the same series of actions that constitute the crime, so he's obviously still engaged in an unlawful activity.
It has nothing to do with the "aggressor." That statute doesn't apply here.
But it does because the statute I cited defines aggressor as
a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
Whether petty theft is a forcible felony under Florida law remains to be seen (because Im too lazy to look it up, but either way if it allows someone who is committing a forcible felony to claim self-defense (and get its immunity) if they back down, I would be incredibly surprised if it didnt do the same for non-felonies (which I assume the dead guy was guilty of)).
I looked, and petty theft isn't a forcible felony...that's why I was saying that. Theft is only a forcible felony if it elevates to robbery, which has the use of threat or violence before, during, or after the taking as an element.
That's why I was curious earlier because the use of force by the guy stealing the stereo could either be seen as elevation to robbery (disqualifying him from being able to use self-defense at all) or self-defense (against the dude with the knife). I lean towards the latter. But to put it in nerd terms, it's a matter of which "resolves" first...because he's definitely still actively participating in the commission of the theft.
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Well, from the outside looking in there seems to have been a tonal change. Maybe the ideas havent changed, but their application has? Prior to this your ideas seemed reasonable although I disagreed but regarding this case theyve seemed intensified? I dunno, whatever, its irrelevant.
It could be the fact that this thread is, for the most part, me, two or three people that disagree with me, and a half dozen people who think I'm a barbaric and cowardly nazi.
That'll affect tone just a tad.
Oh and Quid.
Could be, but I noticed the change before the Nazi thing was brought up (and hey, you could just be a normal skinhead, there were several options you could choose from :P).
Maybe Florida prosecutors are just fucking terrible?
EDIT: But yeah, forcible felony = no SYG, I was misreading the statute, in that I totally skipped the or part. If its so important maybe they should make it bigger! Shut up its 2am.
EDIT 2: But to clarify, if youre committing a crime you can still claim self defense, you just have to (try to) retreat first.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
It's not a blind spot at all. I've said once, twice, three times (a lady) that I'm pretty sure Garcia (or whatever his name was) was probably legally in the wrong in his actions.
But you sure seem happy with how the whole thing turned out, judge giving an easy acquittal to stabber without a full trial, and thief being quite dead. You are all over the place, saying one thing while implying another.
Do you not see anything wrong with "this guy is probably guilty, but it might be hard to prove, so fuck it he gets a complete acquittal without a full trial to determine the facts and he is now immune to any further criminal or civil proceedings on the matter?" Because if that's fine with you, Florida seems to have things a OK!
I don't see it as being worth changing the law over. Plus, if the prosecution didn't have enough of the facts determined to meet a preponderance burden, they should have waited to charge him. I mean, it's a thought. This ain't Jeopardy, you don't have to buzz in before the other guys.
I've also stated that I'm not entirely down with civil immunity.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
Exactly. At that point, it is the knife wielder committing the crime (assault with a deadly weapon) that the victim (thief) has every right to defend himself from.
Okay, put the knife in the pocket of the pursuer. Does this change anything?
Because we're also arguing principles here, not just the facts of this specific case (which I agree may support charges against Garcia).
Uh, yes, that does change things quite a bit. If he pursues the robber with a knife in his pocket, is attacked by the robber after he catches up then busts out the knife to fight back that changes the calculus a lot. Clearly the knife was out before then according to the stabber because he said he parried the radio bag in the same motion as stabbing the robber.
Indeed. So we're in agreement there.
Some, however, seem to think that the mere pursuit, which then results in a death, should still be criminal. Because a stereo ain't worth killin' over. Which it isn't, but it may be worth chasing over, and if the other dude decides it's worth fighting over, that may escalate to killing over it.
To me, if Garcia has the knife in a pocket then kills Roteta, that's fairly clearly justified self defense. If Roteta drops the stereos, and Garcia continues pursuit (knife out or no) and stabs him, that's pretty clearly not self-defense. What actually happened is...well, probably unlawful, but ugly and difficult to prosecute. But yeah, my overall reaction is "meh."
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Probably, yeah.
Actually, almost certainly.
I mean, even assuming you take the bag of stereos to be deadly force (or GBH), it's proportional to the knife that's being brandished against him.
Maybe Florida prosecutors are just fucking terrible?
Seriously.
EDIT: But yeah, forcible felony = no SYG, I was misreading the statute, in that I totally skipped the or part. If its so important maybe they should make it bigger! Shut up its 2am.
EDIT 2: But to clarify, if youre committing a crime you can still claim self defense, you just have to (try to) retreat first.
No, forcible felony means no self-defense whatsoever. SYG =/= self-defense. It is merely a subset of self-defense.
You literally cannot legally lift a finger even under threat of death if committing a forcible felony. At least per statute.
A lot of people in this thread have been using "SYG" to refer to self-defense in general, so it confuses matters.
EDIT: A lot of people, including myself perhaps, have also interchanged "felony" and "forcible felony" inappropriately as well.
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Probably, yeah.
Actually, almost certainly.
I mean, even assuming you take the bag of stereos to be deadly force (or GBH), it's proportional to the knife that's being brandished against him.
But its still totally cool that a guy who was acting in self defense was fatally stabbed and then the guy who killed him is now immune from prosecution and will never face a trial?
EDIT: But yeah, forcible felony = no SYG, I was misreading the statute, in that I totally skipped the or part. If its so important maybe they should make it bigger! Shut up its 2am.
EDIT 2: But to clarify, if youre committing a crime you can still claim self defense, you just have to (try to) retreat first.
No, forcible felony means no self-defense whatsoever. SYG =/= self-defense. It is merely a subset of self-defense.
You literally cannot legally lift a finger even under threat of death if committing a forcible felony. At least per statute.
A lot of people in this thread have been using "SYG" to refer to self-defense in general, so it confuses matters.
EDIT: A lot of people, including myself perhaps, have also interchanged "felony" and "forcible felony" inappropriately as well.
Yeah, my clarification requires clarification, hahaha. By crime I meant non-forcible felony which when typing it out I thought (forcible felonies) would be excluded from crimes where self defense was still available, but reading it now I can totally see the confusion.
Forcible felony, no self defense ever.
Any other crime, self defense but you have to (try to) retreat.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
It's not a blind spot at all. I've said once, twice, three times (a lady) that I'm pretty sure Garcia (or whatever his name was) was probably legally in the wrong in his actions.
But you sure seem happy with how the whole thing turned out, judge giving an easy acquittal to stabber without a full trial, and thief being quite dead. You are all over the place, saying one thing while implying another.
Do you not see anything wrong with "this guy is probably guilty, but it might be hard to prove, so fuck it he gets a complete acquittal without a full trial to determine the facts and he is now immune to any further criminal or civil proceedings on the matter?" Because if that's fine with you, Florida seems to have things a OK!
I don't see it as being worth changing the law over. Plus, if the prosecution didn't have enough of the facts determined to meet a preponderance burden, they should have waited to charge him. I mean, it's a thought. This ain't Jeopardy, you don't have to buzz in before the other guys.
I've also stated that I'm not entirely down with civil immunity.
See, I think that being able to completely nullify a case against someone that easily is nuts. It's one thing for the judge to be able to go, "this evidence doesn't look like it is good enough for now, come back when you get more", it is quite another for them to say "it doesn't look like this evidence is good enough now, so instead of having a trial for a jury to evaluate it to see if it holds up under closer examination or holding off on legal proceedings until more evidence comes forward we'll let the accused completely off the hook." It's a finding of fact that is rather premature that only comes up in the very particular case of a homicide where the defendant claims self defense.
Also, if you think the evidence says the guy is probably guilty, then the preponderance of evidence threshold has been met. So under that standard you shouldn't think that things went correctly in this case.
Mcdermott, you seem have this blind spot where the whole CHASING AFTER THE GUY WITH A FUCKING KNIFE didn't happen. Because, that's sort of an important detail, and a pretty hostile act.
Exactly. At that point, it is the knife wielder committing the crime (assault with a deadly weapon) that the victim (thief) has every right to defend himself from.
Okay, put the knife in the pocket of the pursuer. Does this change anything?
Because we're also arguing principles here, not just the facts of this specific case (which I agree may support charges against Garcia).
Uh, yes, that does change things quite a bit. If he pursues the robber with a knife in his pocket, is attacked by the robber after he catches up then busts out the knife to fight back that changes the calculus a lot. Clearly the knife was out before then according to the stabber because he said he parried the radio bag in the same motion as stabbing the robber.
Indeed. So we're in agreement there.
Some, however, seem to think that the mere pursuit, which then results in a death, should still be criminal. Because a stereo ain't worth killin' over. Which it isn't, but it may be worth chasing over, and if the other dude decides it's worth fighting over, that may escalate to killing over it.
To me, if Garcia has the knife in a pocket then kills Roteta, that's fairly clearly justified self defense. If Roteta drops the stereos, and Garcia continues pursuit (knife out or no) and stabs him, that's pretty clearly not self-defense. What actually happened is...well, probably unlawful, but ugly and difficult to prosecute. But yeah, my overall reaction is "meh."
Slow down there. If he busts out the knife and kills Roteta, he might be acting lawfully. He still has to meet the criterion of having a reasonable fear of death or great harm. And he may have some moral culpability still if his first resort to the thief clumsily swinging radios at him is to stab him in the gut.
It's the chasing after the guy with the knife in the first place that makes it pretty damn clear to me that it wasn't purely self defense even if a bag of radios was swung at him as he claims.
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Probably, yeah.
Actually, almost certainly.
I mean, even assuming you take the bag of stereos to be deadly force (or GBH), it's proportional to the knife that's being brandished against him.
But its still totally cool that a guy who was acting in self defense was fatally stabbed and then the guy who killed him is now immune from prosecution and will never face a trial?
True. I don't know if "totally cool" is what I'd stick with, but maybe "not worth changing the law over?"
It's kind of the same problem we have in a lot of questionable or overturned death penalty convictions (not that I support the death penalty)...like, even if the guy may be innocent of the specific charge he's on death row for, he's almost always still a thoroughly contemptible and most certainly violent criminal. In that same vein, I find it hard to get too worked up about a guy who was swinging his bag of stolen stereos at the head of the owner of one of those stereos and got stabbed for it. Even if the stabber was equally douchey to, if not more douchey than, the stabee.
See, I think that being able to completely nullify a case against someone that easily is nuts. It's one thing for the judge to be able to go, "this evidence doesn't look like it is good enough for now, come back when you get more", it is quite another for them to say "it doesn't look like this evidence is good enough now, so instead of having a trial for a jury to evaluate it to see if it holds up under closer examination or holding off on legal proceedings until more evidence comes forward we'll let the accused completely off the hook." It's a finding of fact that is rather premature that only comes up in the very particular case of a homicide where the defendant claims self defense.
Also, if you think the evidence says the guy is probably guilty, then the preponderance of evidence threshold has been met. So under that standard you shouldn't think that things went correctly in this case.
A fair argument.
I still don't see them clearing a reasonable doubt standard, so I'm not too worked up about it. I can agree that permanent pre-trial dismissal is problematic. I understand the idea behind it, but I can agree that in practice it doesn't seem like the best idea.
Slow down there. If he busts out the knife and kills Roteta, he might be acting lawfully. He still has to meet the criterion of having a reasonable fear of death or great harm. And he may have some moral culpability still if his first resort to the thief clumsily swinging radios at him is to stab him in the gut.
It's the chasing after the guy with the knife in the first place that makes it pretty damn clear to me that it wasn't purely self defense even if a bag of radios was swung at him as he claims.
Moral culpability, sure. Legal culpability? Somebody's swinging heavy shit at your head and you stab them in response, yeah I'm not necessarily seeing a legal problem there. I can imagine some scenarios in which it wouldn't be justified, but they tend to fall deep into 'good luck proving it' territory. But yes, obviously he has to meet the reasonable fear of death or great harm. Which having shit swing at my head damn near instantly clears.
Chasing with knife in hand? Sure. That's brandishing, and that's a damn aggressive posture. Chasing, with a knife on your person in case it's needed for self-defense? That's...self-defense*.
Even chasing with knife in hand may be justifiable, though I don't necessarily see it here.
You need to remember that the "he swung the radios at my head!" was a claim made by the defense, not a fully established fact. In the hypothetical case where he kept a knife in the pocket until he caught up with the robber, there would still need to be an evaluation of the facts as to whether the defense was telling the truth about being attacked and the nature of that attack. Which fits into the whole "reasonable fear of death or great harm" thing, but taking the defense's word unquestioningly as fact is not a good idea.
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Probably, yeah.
Actually, almost certainly.
I mean, even assuming you take the bag of stereos to be deadly force (or GBH), it's proportional to the knife that's being brandished against him.
But its still totally cool that a guy who was acting in self defense was fatally stabbed and then the guy who killed him is now immune from prosecution and will never face a trial?
True. I don't know if "totally cool" is what I'd stick with, but maybe "not worth changing the law over?"
It's kind of the same problem we have in a lot of questionable or overturned death penalty convictions (not that I support the death penalty)...like, even if the guy may be innocent of the specific charge he's on death row for, he's almost always still a thoroughly contemptible and most certainly violent criminal. In that same vein, I find it hard to get too worked up about a guy who was swinging his bag of stolen stereos at the head of the owner of one of those stereos and got stabbed for it. Even if the stabber was equally douchey to, if not more douchey than, the stabee.
So basically, it has problems but fuck it why fix them?
Slow down there. If he busts out the knife and kills Roteta, he might be acting lawfully. He still has to meet the criterion of having a reasonable fear of death or great harm. And he may have some moral culpability still if his first resort to the thief clumsily swinging radios at him is to stab him in the gut.
It's the chasing after the guy with the knife in the first place that makes it pretty damn clear to me that it wasn't purely self defense even if a bag of radios was swung at him as he claims.
Moral culpability, sure. Legal culpability? Somebody's swinging heavy shit at your head and you stab them in response, yeah I'm not necessarily seeing a legal problem there. I can imagine some scenarios in which it wouldn't be justified, but they tend to fall deep into 'good luck proving it' territory. But yes, obviously he has to meet the reasonable fear of death or great harm. Which having shit swing at my head damn near instantly clears.
Chasing with knife in hand? Sure. That's brandishing, and that's a damn aggressive posture. Chasing, with a knife on your person in case it's needed for self-defense? That's...self-defense*.
Even chasing with knife in hand may be justifiable, though I don't necessarily see it here.
* - Well, it's pursuit, followed by self-defense.
So its okay for someone to be killed when acting in self defense if he fails to kill his attacker because now his attacker is acting in self defense (since the person he is attacking has tried to kill him)?
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Probably, yeah.
Actually, almost certainly.
I mean, even assuming you take the bag of stereos to be deadly force (or GBH), it's proportional to the knife that's being brandished against him.
But its still totally cool that a guy who was acting in self defense was fatally stabbed and then the guy who killed him is now immune from prosecution and will never face a trial?
True. I don't know if "totally cool" is what I'd stick with, but maybe "not worth changing the law over?"
It's kind of the same problem we have in a lot of questionable or overturned death penalty convictions (not that I support the death penalty)...like, even if the guy may be innocent of the specific charge he's on death row for, he's almost always still a thoroughly contemptible and most certainly violent criminal. In that same vein, I find it hard to get too worked up about a guy who was swinging his bag of stolen stereos at the head of the owner of one of those stereos and got stabbed for it. Even if the stabber was equally douchey to, if not more douchey than, the stabee.
So basically, it has problems but fuck it why fix them?
Largely, yes. Every "fix" that anybody has suggested or alluded to, aside from doing away with the immunity bit, is (IMO) worse than the "problem."
Slow down there. If he busts out the knife and kills Roteta, he might be acting lawfully. He still has to meet the criterion of having a reasonable fear of death or great harm. And he may have some moral culpability still if his first resort to the thief clumsily swinging radios at him is to stab him in the gut.
It's the chasing after the guy with the knife in the first place that makes it pretty damn clear to me that it wasn't purely self defense even if a bag of radios was swung at him as he claims.
Moral culpability, sure. Legal culpability? Somebody's swinging heavy shit at your head and you stab them in response, yeah I'm not necessarily seeing a legal problem there. I can imagine some scenarios in which it wouldn't be justified, but they tend to fall deep into 'good luck proving it' territory. But yes, obviously he has to meet the reasonable fear of death or great harm. Which having shit swing at my head damn near instantly clears.
Chasing with knife in hand? Sure. That's brandishing, and that's a damn aggressive posture. Chasing, with a knife on your person in case it's needed for self-defense? That's...self-defense*.
Even chasing with knife in hand may be justifiable, though I don't necessarily see it here.
* - Well, it's pursuit, followed by self-defense.
So its okay for someone to be killed when acting in self defense if he fails to kill his attacker because now his attacker is acting in self defense (since the person he is attacking has tried to kill him)?
We were arguing a hypothetical, where the knife was not in-hand at the time of the swing. At which point Roteta would not have been justified in swinging the stereos in self-defense.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
So, here's my problem with the case of Stabby McVigilante:
The one big issue was, he grabbed the knife first. Would it have been better if he had chased down the thief unarmed and got bludgeoned with the stereos and/or stabbed with the theifs own knife? No, a man should never die over a car stereo, but a man attempting to prevent himself from being robbed shouldnt die because he was overly cautious regarding his own protection. At the end of the day, obvious attempt at lethal force was first perpetrated by the thief. Garcia had a knife, yes, but so did the thief (along with the bag). Maybe he wouldnt have used either had Garcia been unarmed. Or maybe he wouldve bashed Garcia's head in and proceeded to stab him himself.
Were getting away from the guy with the knife his biggest concern, he wouldve dropped the fucking bag so he could run faster. Had he done that, or surrendered, id say fuck Garcia. But thats not the case.
So, here's my problem with the case of Stabby McVigilante:
The one big issue was, he grabbed the knife first. Would it have been better if he had chased down the thief unarmed and got bludgeoned with the stereos and/or stabbed with the theifs own knife? No, a man should never die over a car stereo, but a man attempting to prevent himself from being robbed shouldnt die because he was overly cautious regarding his own protection. At the end of the day, obvious attempt at lethal force was first perpetrated by the thief. Garcia had a knife, yes, but so did the thief (along with the bag). Maybe he wouldnt have used either had Garcia been unarmed. Or maybe he wouldve bashed Garcia's head in and proceeded to stab him himself.
Were getting away from the guy with the knife his biggest concern, he wouldve dropped the fucking bag so he could run faster. Had he done that, or surrendered, id say fuck Garcia. But thats not the case.
Thing is, running at somebody with a knife is a threat of deadly force, and at the point Garcia did so he was not justified yet in using deadly force. Roteta had a knife, but it was in his pocket. Garcia was threatened deadly force to stop a theft (as opposed to a robbery), which only justifies non-deady force. Which is precisely why Roteta was (probably) justified in his use of force.
I mean, law's the law here, and while I don't agree with the more pacifist end that you should always just let the stereo go at the same time if the law requires you to confront with non-deadly force before escalating to deadly force well...yeah. If you're not comfortable following the use-of-force continuum that the state lays out for you, then yes I do suggest letting the stereo go.
I wholly support chasing somebody or confronting them over your property, if that's how you want to roll. I also support you maintaining your full right to self-defense if you do so. I don't think I support skipping straight to deadly force over mere property theft, which is what Garcia did. If that's how you roll, maybe move to Texas?
My problem with this case, after a couple pages of discussion, is that it got dismissed even though the state seems to have met the preponderance burden. They probably would have lost at trial, unfortunately, but I really don't see how this shouldn't have cleared the initial hurdle.
I can tell a lot of you haven't been in fights. You may think a sack of radios isn't really a deadly weapon.
But fuck that, I could probably kill you with a fucking screw, let alone a heavy blunt object.
It is incredibly easy to kill someone with a hammer, let alone a sack of plastic and metal. You are not as tough as you think you are, and, really, lots of things make incredibly dangerous weapons. Short of Styrofoam, it's probably easily transformed into a weapon. Hell, a single punch can actually crush someone's skull.
So yes, arming yourself when confronting someone who has committed a crime is probably a reasonable thing to do. Most people who commit even the smallest of crimes, short of shoplifting, are most likely armed. Burglars included.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Mcdermott, I believe your position is one I can be comfortable with. In fact, we probably agree on more than it at first seemed.
While I have been the victim of several car vandalisms and one significant theft in my life, they all happened in my absence, so I'm sure that colours my perception of it.
Thanks man. I like to think my position is at least somewhat nuanced, even if I'm a bit extreme in defending it.
I definitely draw important lines between outcomes I'd pursue personally, outcomes I'm more or less comfortable with, and outcomes I think should be legal. This is a case (Garcia) where I'd probably not support it being legal, but if a prosecutor can't prove it I'm still more or less comfortable with it. It certainly isn't an outcome I'd pursue personally. Well, probably not....never been in that situation, so can't say.
I think part of the problem is that I come across as very cavalier about the taking of human life. I'd like to think it's something I still take quite seriously, though I just don't find the idea as shocking on it's face as many or most do. It may seem like a cop out, but I'll chalk that up to having trained for and performed a job where willingness to kill people is a prerequisite.
I'm not excited about ever having to, but I get the feeling I still don't look at the idea the same way most do anymore. .
Having no job performance tied to killing, I can say I feel the same way. Human life is intrinsically valuable, I think, however there exists a certain notion, and I'm dumbfounded by this too, that all human life is equally as valuable as any other.
I, like you mcdermott, draw the line at felonious assault. You start using weapons, the game is off and your life is forfeit and I don't give a rats fucking ass if you just stole someone's god damned sweet roll, you start beating someone with your sack of rolling pins then fuck you.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So it was established that Stabby McVigilante threatened Radio Thief with the knife, or was carrying it as he chased him? These are two different things. Simply holding the knife isn't even brandishing, you need to behave in a threatening manner (I'm not sure running with knives is considered threatening, although it probably isn't recommended) with it. If there is evidence that McVigilante made stabby stabby motions or verbal threats while holding the knife, then it's self-defense on the part of Radio Thief. Otherwise, if there is evidence that Thief swung his Bag O' Hammers, then it's self defense on the part of McVigilante.
edit:
For reference, from a possibly biased source (a defense attorney):
The offense of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or other Weapon is defined under Section 790.10 of the Florida Statutes. The statute prohibits any person from “having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon” and, in the presence of another person, exhibiting the weapon “in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, and not in necessary self-defense.” Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or Weapon is classified as a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 365 days in jail and a $1000.00 fine. Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or Weapon is a permissive lesser-included offense of aggravated assault.
To prove the crime of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or Weapon at trial, the prosecution must establish the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant had or carried a “weapon,” (2) the defendant exhibited the alleged weapon in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, (3) the defendant did so in the presence of one or more persons.
Simply holding the knife isn't even brandishing, you need to behave in a threatening manner (I'm not sure running with knives is considered threatening, although it probably isn't recommended) .vith it.
I'm operating under the principle that giving chase with it in hand is threatening.
But yeah, you could argue otherwise. Which is why I think conviction may have been unlikely.
I can tell a lot of you haven't been in fights. You may think a sack of radios isn't really a deadly weapon.
But fuck that, I could probably kill you with a fucking screw, let alone a heavy blunt object.
It is incredibly easy to kill someone with a hammer, let alone a sack of plastic and metal. You are not as tough as you think you are, and, really, lots of things make incredibly dangerous weapons. Short of Styrofoam, it's probably easily transformed into a weapon. Hell, a single punch can actually crush someone's skull.
So yes, arming yourself when confronting someone who has committed a crime is probably a reasonable thing to do. Most people who commit even the smallest of crimes, short of shoplifting, are most likely armed. Burglars included.
I dont think anyone is contending that a sack of radios cant be used as a deadly weapon (although, legally, it isnt since deadly weapons are basically limited to guns, knives, swords, homemade weapons (bats with nails in them sort of thing). However, I think youre missing the part where the guy who was using the sack of radios as a deadly weapon was, in all likelihood, acting in self defense (since he was being chased down by a guy with a knife).
I dont think arming yourself before going after a thief is unreasonable (although I question the reasonableness of going after a thief if you think they may kill you), I do however think running around with the weapon you have armed yourself with out is unreasonable. If he had a gun and chased the guy down? Should have it in his holster, not in his hand. Same goes with the knife.
I can tell a lot of you haven't been in fights. You may think a sack of radios isn't really a deadly weapon.
But fuck that, I could probably kill you with a fucking screw, let alone a heavy blunt object.
It is incredibly easy to kill someone with a hammer, let alone a sack of plastic and metal. You are not as tough as you think you are, and, really, lots of things make incredibly dangerous weapons. Short of Styrofoam, it's probably easily transformed into a weapon. Hell, a single punch can actually crush someone's skull.
So yes, arming yourself when confronting someone who has committed a crime is probably a reasonable thing to do. Most people who commit even the smallest of crimes, short of shoplifting, are most likely armed. Burglars included.
I dont think anyone is contending that a sack of radios cant be used as a deadly weapon (although, legally, it isnt since deadly weapons are basically limited to guns, knives, swords, homemade weapons (bats with nails in them sort of thing). However, I think youre missing the part where the guy who was using the sack of radios as a deadly weapon was, in all likelihood, acting in self defense (since he was being chased down by a guy with a knife).
I dont think arming yourself before going after a thief is unreasonable (although I question the reasonableness of going after a thief if you think they may kill you), I do however think running around with the weapon you have armed yourself with out is unreasonable. If he had a gun and chased the guy down? Should have it in his holster, not in his hand. Same goes with the knife.
Do we know what kind of knife it was? Was it a pocket knife, or a kitchen knife? Because with the latter, trying to shove it into your pocket and then running is a whole system of bad ideas. Alternatively, not having a holster. Lets say a guy is making off with your beloved puppy (theoretical situation), and you dont have your holster but you can grab your gun before taking off. You could stick it in your waistband, but again, very bad idea.
I think it comes down to the knife. Was it something that couldve safely and quickly pocketed or no?
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I cant get a great answer, but my brief googlefu (on a phone) seems to indicate Garcia had a large kitchen knife.
I can tell a lot of you haven't been in fights. You may think a sack of radios isn't really a deadly weapon.
But fuck that, I could probably kill you with a fucking screw, let alone a heavy blunt object.
It is incredibly easy to kill someone with a hammer, let alone a sack of plastic and metal. You are not as tough as you think you are, and, really, lots of things make incredibly dangerous weapons. Short of Styrofoam, it's probably easily transformed into a weapon. Hell, a single punch can actually crush someone's skull.
So yes, arming yourself when confronting someone who has committed a crime is probably a reasonable thing to do. Most people who commit even the smallest of crimes, short of shoplifting, are most likely armed. Burglars included.
I dont think anyone is contending that a sack of radios cant be used as a deadly weapon (although, legally, it isnt since deadly weapons are basically limited to guns, knives, swords, homemade weapons (bats with nails in them sort of thing). However, I think youre missing the part where the guy who was using the sack of radios as a deadly weapon was, in all likelihood, acting in self defense (since he was being chased down by a guy with a knife).
I dont think arming yourself before going after a thief is unreasonable (although I question the reasonableness of going after a thief if you think they may kill you), I do however think running around with the weapon you have armed yourself with out is unreasonable. If he had a gun and chased the guy down? Should have it in his holster, not in his hand. Same goes with the knife.
Do we know what kind of knife it was? Was it a pocket knife, or a kitchen knife? Because with the latter, trying to shove it into your pocket and then running is a whole system of bad ideas. Alternatively, not having a holster. Lets say a guy is making off with your beloved puppy (theoretical situation), and you dont have your holster but you can grab your gun before taking off. You could stick it in your waistband, but again, very bad idea.
I think it comes down to the knife. Was it something that couldve safely and quickly pocketed or no?
If the safest way to carry the weapon youre choosing to use to chase down a criminal is in your hand, I suggest putting down the weapon and picking up a phone to call the police.
Posts
Except, you know, if the thief had actually killed the defendant, he probably would have pled guilty to theft and would have had the murder charges (if they were ever brought) dropped because he was being chased down by a dude with a fucking knife. Apparently, acting in self defense to save your life (you know, because its reasonable to believe that a dude who is chasing you with a knife is going to put your in imminent danger/GBH) and failing (because you miss) allows the person who put you in the position to act in self defense to act in his self defense and kill you. Justified homicide, fuck yeah.
This is just wrong, committing crimes doesnt prevent SYG from applying. You can still claim self defense under SYG and win, you just wont be immune from criminal and/or civil proceedings (so instead of filing a motion and skipping court, you have to go to court and prove your case to a jury or judge depending on what you (and the prosecutor) want. Actually, even that is sort of wrong, since you can still be immune from prosecution/civil suit if you attempt to stand down before the other person "makes you" kill them (so if you start a fight and they produce a knife and you back down and then they try to stab you, you can shoot them and still be immune).
Also, breaking into an empty vehicle is not a forcible felony.
Look, I get that you have recently been the victim of a robbery and that shit sucks, but its totally clouding your judgment here. I get it. Ive had shit stolen too, it sucks, its upsetting, you feel violated and fuck those assholes, but those assholes are still people.
Well, I'm happy to agree to disagree and be happy that the law in Canada is on my side and not yours.
I'm also pretty happy that violent crime in Canada is significantly less than the US, so that probably contributes to the notion here that this isn't the wild west.
EDIT: PS. No, I won't pay for your stereo because fuck you and your belief that your stereo is more important than somebody's life.
Do I need to reiterate the part where I think Stabby McVigilante is probably guilty of a crime? But that proving it beyond reasonable doubt would be a long shot (which is presumably the reason the judge ruled in his favor)?
So yes, our justice system forces us to let the dude go. The only two options are to do away with the current burden of proof, which is obviously no bueno, or change the laws so that I have to wave bye bye and wish thieves good fortune as they run off with my Xbox. And fuck that too. As it is, I'm comfortable with this outcome, even though Garcia sounds like a dirtbag too.
So far as a bag with a few radios being a proportional threat to a knife in the chest- fuck off. You might as well start arguing Detharin's one-punch-TNT-Explosion bullshit.
You do realize that by your own admissions in this thread that you, yourself should have been killed by your own ethos in attacking someone with a blunt object, right? Did you deserve to die over that? Wife widowed? Kids growing up without a father? Or can you really just not place yourself in that position?
Because it seems to me, by calling people dirtbags and what not that you're really just trying to dehumanize them and make the awful shit that was done to them okay. That's classic thinking right there. Nazis, lynch mobs and modern day skinheads are all in equal agreement with you there.
Are you proud of that?
I think this is where we're stuck, because I see this as the end result of all such cases. Lacking witness, anyone can say, "I was chasing him while screaming like a banshee and waving a claymore, but I just wanted my stuff back. The dude tried to punch me so I decapitated him. Total self defence. Honest." While I'm being facetious, the gist is that it gives carte blanche to kill a thief because all you have to say is the thief tried to attack you and it requires no proof for you to get off scott free.
In this case, we should defer to the manslaughter charge as a baseline and go up from there.
Am I reading this wrong?
That doesn't say forcible felony, or even felony. Stealing stereos is, last I checked, an unlawful activity. I'm pretty sure SYG wouldn't apply to Roteta.
Irrelevant, since dirtbag guy clearly met his duty to retreat.
Dude, that robbery happened mid-thread. I don't feel like my position has changed. But I've been the victim of robberies and assaults in the past as well.
I'll point out that I still only support the legal use of force against dirtbags if they use force first. I believe I stated long ago that I felt the whole "use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony" was probably overly broad, since at least some of the forcible felonies that qualify don't have harm or attempted harm to another person as an element.
Again, the medical examiner disagreed. Also, common sense. A bag of stereos to the head is clearly a threat of GBH or death.
Dude, I don't care about your dad. If somebody had shot him for starting fights, I'd have been cool with that. Also, I didn't have a wife or kids back when I did the stupid things I did. Though I'm sure my mom would have grieved for me if somebody had used deadly force to stop me. But no, I wouldn't have expected anybody else who didn't personally care about me to shed too many tears. Because yes, at that moment I was acting like an uncivilized fucking savage.
So I'm a Nazi now? Cool, I guess. Winner.
Sure.
Anyone can say that, sure. Yet still, it doesn't happen all that often. Maybe because there's always the risk that there was a witness (or some kind of nearby camera), so most people don't automatically go for The Perfect Crime(TM). And some fail to get away with it. But some do, sure.
Some crimes be tough to prosecute. This does not always mean changing the law is necessary.
Regardless, if I was his defense attorney I would argue that the theft had already occurred and therefore he was not at the time he was confronted by the defendant engaged in unlawful activity (although, I guess possession of stolen property and potentially a deadly weapon depending on the size of the knife). Which makes me wonder, if youre drunk in public and are threatened with immenent harm/GBH and kill the person who is attacking you, are you no longer able to claim self defense? What if you get drunk and youre about to get raped and you kill the person trying to rape you (unless that doesnt count as GBH), can you no longer claim self defense under SYG? (if so, this law gets even more ridiculous).
Which one was the dirtbag again? The dead guy who was running or the dude who stabbed him to death?
I was specifically referring to your comments regarding this particular case and not the Zimmerman case (where I think we agree on the outcome should it go to trial, but differ on basically everything else, hahaha).
This is the whole petty crime granting a license to kill thing, which I find abhorrent if that is what the law really means. I'm not so sure of that though, that simply says that if you are behaving lawfully and are attacked you can defend yourself lawfully without retreating. It doesn't say "however if you are attacked while behaving unlawfully, you are fair game!" nor "if someone is behaving unlawfully you get to chase after them with a knife!" I don't think those particular circumstances are covered by that section of the law.
Your attitude of being just fine with people getting killed over petty matters really makes it seem like you are approaching this with a barbaric mindset. It makes me doubtful that common ground can be found discussing this.
Escaping with the stereos is clearly still a part of the same series of actions that constitute the crime, so he's obviously still engaged in an unlawful activity.
It has nothing to do with the "aggressor." That statute doesn't apply here.
Rape is GBH, for starters. Beyond that, I have no idea what qualifies as an "unlawful activity," or if that unlawful activity has to be at least tangentially related to the use of force (for instance, using force to get away with stereos). It is indeed possible, under a strict reading of the statute, that being drunk in public would be an unlawful activity, and thus a rape victim could no longer claim SYG protection. They would still be able to use force in self-defense, however, they'd just be subject to the previous duty to retreat if possible...and color me skeptical that they'd be convicted based on that.
But yeah, I get the feeling you'd need to dig into case law to answer that "unlawful activity" question. I'd be interested.
Dirtbag is the stereo thief. The other guy is a dirtbag too, but I've dubbed him Stabby McVigilante. You can decide whether the generic pejorative or the judgmental nickname is more dehumanizing.
I'd be fine with Zimmerman's case being dismissed for failing to meet preponderance, though going to trial is fine with me too.
And no, my views didn't really change when we got robbed. I was already pretty firm on self-defense earlier in the thread, and I've always been pretty pro-property-rights when it comes to stopping people from taking my stuff. I can get admittedly a bit Randian on that subject. Like, I'm all about a legitimately elected government taking my money through taxation and redistributing it, but some dipshit thinks he can just bust my window and take my things? Oh hell no.
It's not a blind spot at all. I've said once, twice, three times (a lady) that I'm pretty sure Garcia (or whatever his name was) was probably legally in the wrong in his actions.
Correct, as I've said repeatedly you have the right to defend yourself even if breaking the law, you simply have a duty to retreat. Which Ret...dirtbag met.
The only time you lose your right to defend yourself legally full stop is if you are committing a forcible felony.
Actually they seem to be, the issue is more likely burden of proof.
My attitude is basically that by committing a barbaric act (and stealing my shit is a barbaric act) you have essentially chosen to create a little pocket of barbarism around yourself. And I will not be the least bit sad, no, if something barbaric happens to you as a result. But if we apprehend you, and get you back into a nice civilized courtroom, you should still have all the rights and protections you are entitled to. Same once we ship you off to prison (since we shouldn't be running our own little barbaric colonies, not if we want to pretend to be civilized).
Like, is there some confusion about the fact that Stand Your Ground (or rather the one section of the law referred to as such) is not the entirety of your right to self-defense? Just because you can't claim protection under SYG does not mean you cannot defend yourself...it just means you have the duty to retreat (if reasonably possible), as set out in previous Florida case law.
The only time you lose all legal self-defense claim is in the commission of a forcible felony. I hope I don't have to explain why, in principle, that makes perfect sense. A couple crimes defined as forcible felonies may make this problematic, but it's not absurd on its face.
But it does because the statute I cited defines aggressor as
Whether petty theft is a forcible felony under Florida law remains to be seen (because Im too lazy to look it up, but either way if it allows someone who is committing a forcible felony to claim self-defense (and get its immunity) if they back down, I would be incredibly surprised if it didnt do the same for non-felonies (which I assume the dead guy was guilty of)).
Yeah, I assumed rape would be GBH, I mean, come on, its rape.
Maybe I'll look into it on Thursday...I should be sleeping now and I have my final final (ever) on Wednesday so...
Well, from the outside looking in there seems to have been a tonal change. Maybe the ideas havent changed, but their application has? Prior to this your ideas seemed reasonable although I disagreed but regarding this case theyve seemed intensified? I dunno, whatever, its irrelevant.
Exactly. At that point, it is the knife wielder committing the crime (assault with a deadly weapon) that the victim (thief) has every right to defend himself from.
I looked, and petty theft isn't a forcible felony...that's why I was saying that. Theft is only a forcible felony if it elevates to robbery, which has the use of threat or violence before, during, or after the taking as an element.
That's why I was curious earlier because the use of force by the guy stealing the stereo could either be seen as elevation to robbery (disqualifying him from being able to use self-defense at all) or self-defense (against the dude with the knife). I lean towards the latter. But to put it in nerd terms, it's a matter of which "resolves" first...because he's definitely still actively participating in the commission of the theft.
It could be the fact that this thread is, for the most part, me, two or three people that disagree with me, and a half dozen people who think I'm a barbaric and cowardly nazi.
That'll affect tone just a tad.
Oh and Quid.
Okay, put the knife in the pocket of the pursuer (edit: then pulled out and used after the assault by the pursued). Does this change anything?
Because we're also arguing principles here, not just the facts of this specific case (which I agree may support charges against Garcia).
But you sure seem happy with how the whole thing turned out, judge giving an easy acquittal to stabber without a full trial, and thief being quite dead. You are all over the place, saying one thing while implying another.
Do you not see anything wrong with "this guy is probably guilty, but it might be hard to prove, so fuck it he gets a complete acquittal without a full trial to determine the facts and he is now immune to any further criminal or civil proceedings on the matter?" Because if that's fine with you, Florida seems to have things a OK!
I find that to be a pretty bad attitude, myself. Maybe you can feel a bit of schadenfreude if a guy who robs you gets offed, but that is not something worth building any sort of moral principles around. Nor a system of law.
Uh, yes, that does change things quite a bit. If he pursues the robber with a knife in his pocket, is attacked by the robber after he catches up then busts out the knife to fight back that changes the calculus a lot. Clearly the knife was out before then according to the stabber because he said he parried the radio bag in the same motion as stabbing the robber.
According to this website (totally reputable, I mean, how can you argue with a URL like that?) it is likely that he was guilty of a felony (Grand Theft in the 3rd Degree which requires stealing something valued at at least $300, which since he had multiple car stereos I assume he met, otherwise its a misdemeanor. Which means he has a duty to retreat, which he was doing since he was running away. So he was acting in self defense when he swung the bag at his killer.
Could be, but I noticed the change before the Nazi thing was brought up (and hey, you could just be a normal skinhead, there were several options you could choose from :P).
Maybe Florida prosecutors are just fucking terrible?
EDIT: But yeah, forcible felony = no SYG, I was misreading the statute, in that I totally skipped the or part. If its so important maybe they should make it bigger! Shut up its 2am.
EDIT 2: But to clarify, if youre committing a crime you can still claim self defense, you just have to (try to) retreat first.
I don't see it as being worth changing the law over. Plus, if the prosecution didn't have enough of the facts determined to meet a preponderance burden, they should have waited to charge him. I mean, it's a thought. This ain't Jeopardy, you don't have to buzz in before the other guys.
I've also stated that I'm not entirely down with civil immunity.
Indeed. So we're in agreement there.
Some, however, seem to think that the mere pursuit, which then results in a death, should still be criminal. Because a stereo ain't worth killin' over. Which it isn't, but it may be worth chasing over, and if the other dude decides it's worth fighting over, that may escalate to killing over it.
To me, if Garcia has the knife in a pocket then kills Roteta, that's fairly clearly justified self defense. If Roteta drops the stereos, and Garcia continues pursuit (knife out or no) and stabs him, that's pretty clearly not self-defense. What actually happened is...well, probably unlawful, but ugly and difficult to prosecute. But yeah, my overall reaction is "meh."
Probably, yeah.
Actually, almost certainly.
I mean, even assuming you take the bag of stereos to be deadly force (or GBH), it's proportional to the knife that's being brandished against him.
Seriously.
No, forcible felony means no self-defense whatsoever. SYG =/= self-defense. It is merely a subset of self-defense.
You literally cannot legally lift a finger even under threat of death if committing a forcible felony. At least per statute.
A lot of people in this thread have been using "SYG" to refer to self-defense in general, so it confuses matters.
EDIT: A lot of people, including myself perhaps, have also interchanged "felony" and "forcible felony" inappropriately as well.
But its still totally cool that a guy who was acting in self defense was fatally stabbed and then the guy who killed him is now immune from prosecution and will never face a trial?
Yeah, my clarification requires clarification, hahaha. By crime I meant non-forcible felony which when typing it out I thought (forcible felonies) would be excluded from crimes where self defense was still available, but reading it now I can totally see the confusion.
Forcible felony, no self defense ever.
Any other crime, self defense but you have to (try to) retreat.
See, I think that being able to completely nullify a case against someone that easily is nuts. It's one thing for the judge to be able to go, "this evidence doesn't look like it is good enough for now, come back when you get more", it is quite another for them to say "it doesn't look like this evidence is good enough now, so instead of having a trial for a jury to evaluate it to see if it holds up under closer examination or holding off on legal proceedings until more evidence comes forward we'll let the accused completely off the hook." It's a finding of fact that is rather premature that only comes up in the very particular case of a homicide where the defendant claims self defense.
Also, if you think the evidence says the guy is probably guilty, then the preponderance of evidence threshold has been met. So under that standard you shouldn't think that things went correctly in this case.
Slow down there. If he busts out the knife and kills Roteta, he might be acting lawfully. He still has to meet the criterion of having a reasonable fear of death or great harm. And he may have some moral culpability still if his first resort to the thief clumsily swinging radios at him is to stab him in the gut.
It's the chasing after the guy with the knife in the first place that makes it pretty damn clear to me that it wasn't purely self defense even if a bag of radios was swung at him as he claims.
True. I don't know if "totally cool" is what I'd stick with, but maybe "not worth changing the law over?"
It's kind of the same problem we have in a lot of questionable or overturned death penalty convictions (not that I support the death penalty)...like, even if the guy may be innocent of the specific charge he's on death row for, he's almost always still a thoroughly contemptible and most certainly violent criminal. In that same vein, I find it hard to get too worked up about a guy who was swinging his bag of stolen stereos at the head of the owner of one of those stereos and got stabbed for it. Even if the stabber was equally douchey to, if not more douchey than, the stabee.
A fair argument.
I still don't see them clearing a reasonable doubt standard, so I'm not too worked up about it. I can agree that permanent pre-trial dismissal is problematic. I understand the idea behind it, but I can agree that in practice it doesn't seem like the best idea.
Moral culpability, sure. Legal culpability? Somebody's swinging heavy shit at your head and you stab them in response, yeah I'm not necessarily seeing a legal problem there. I can imagine some scenarios in which it wouldn't be justified, but they tend to fall deep into 'good luck proving it' territory. But yes, obviously he has to meet the reasonable fear of death or great harm. Which having shit swing at my head damn near instantly clears.
Chasing with knife in hand? Sure. That's brandishing, and that's a damn aggressive posture. Chasing, with a knife on your person in case it's needed for self-defense? That's...self-defense*.
Even chasing with knife in hand may be justifiable, though I don't necessarily see it here.
* - Well, it's pursuit, followed by self-defense.
So basically, it has problems but fuck it why fix them?
So its okay for someone to be killed when acting in self defense if he fails to kill his attacker because now his attacker is acting in self defense (since the person he is attacking has tried to kill him)?
Largely, yes. Every "fix" that anybody has suggested or alluded to, aside from doing away with the immunity bit, is (IMO) worse than the "problem."
We were arguing a hypothetical, where the knife was not in-hand at the time of the swing. At which point Roteta would not have been justified in swinging the stereos in self-defense.
The one big issue was, he grabbed the knife first. Would it have been better if he had chased down the thief unarmed and got bludgeoned with the stereos and/or stabbed with the theifs own knife? No, a man should never die over a car stereo, but a man attempting to prevent himself from being robbed shouldnt die because he was overly cautious regarding his own protection. At the end of the day, obvious attempt at lethal force was first perpetrated by the thief. Garcia had a knife, yes, but so did the thief (along with the bag). Maybe he wouldnt have used either had Garcia been unarmed. Or maybe he wouldve bashed Garcia's head in and proceeded to stab him himself.
Were getting away from the guy with the knife his biggest concern, he wouldve dropped the fucking bag so he could run faster. Had he done that, or surrendered, id say fuck Garcia. But thats not the case.
Thing is, running at somebody with a knife is a threat of deadly force, and at the point Garcia did so he was not justified yet in using deadly force. Roteta had a knife, but it was in his pocket. Garcia was threatened deadly force to stop a theft (as opposed to a robbery), which only justifies non-deady force. Which is precisely why Roteta was (probably) justified in his use of force.
I mean, law's the law here, and while I don't agree with the more pacifist end that you should always just let the stereo go at the same time if the law requires you to confront with non-deadly force before escalating to deadly force well...yeah. If you're not comfortable following the use-of-force continuum that the state lays out for you, then yes I do suggest letting the stereo go.
I wholly support chasing somebody or confronting them over your property, if that's how you want to roll. I also support you maintaining your full right to self-defense if you do so. I don't think I support skipping straight to deadly force over mere property theft, which is what Garcia did. If that's how you roll, maybe move to Texas?
My problem with this case, after a couple pages of discussion, is that it got dismissed even though the state seems to have met the preponderance burden. They probably would have lost at trial, unfortunately, but I really don't see how this shouldn't have cleared the initial hurdle.
But fuck that, I could probably kill you with a fucking screw, let alone a heavy blunt object.
It is incredibly easy to kill someone with a hammer, let alone a sack of plastic and metal. You are not as tough as you think you are, and, really, lots of things make incredibly dangerous weapons. Short of Styrofoam, it's probably easily transformed into a weapon. Hell, a single punch can actually crush someone's skull.
So yes, arming yourself when confronting someone who has committed a crime is probably a reasonable thing to do. Most people who commit even the smallest of crimes, short of shoplifting, are most likely armed. Burglars included.
While I have been the victim of several car vandalisms and one significant theft in my life, they all happened in my absence, so I'm sure that colours my perception of it.
I definitely draw important lines between outcomes I'd pursue personally, outcomes I'm more or less comfortable with, and outcomes I think should be legal. This is a case (Garcia) where I'd probably not support it being legal, but if a prosecutor can't prove it I'm still more or less comfortable with it. It certainly isn't an outcome I'd pursue personally. Well, probably not....never been in that situation, so can't say.
I think part of the problem is that I come across as very cavalier about the taking of human life. I'd like to think it's something I still take quite seriously, though I just don't find the idea as shocking on it's face as many or most do. It may seem like a cop out, but I'll chalk that up to having trained for and performed a job where willingness to kill people is a prerequisite.
I'm not excited about ever having to, but I get the feeling I still don't look at the idea the same way most do anymore. .
I, like you mcdermott, draw the line at felonious assault. You start using weapons, the game is off and your life is forfeit and I don't give a rats fucking ass if you just stole someone's god damned sweet roll, you start beating someone with your sack of rolling pins then fuck you.
edit:
For reference, from a possibly biased source (a defense attorney):
I'm operating under the principle that giving chase with it in hand is threatening.
But yeah, you could argue otherwise. Which is why I think conviction may have been unlikely.
I dont think anyone is contending that a sack of radios cant be used as a deadly weapon (although, legally, it isnt since deadly weapons are basically limited to guns, knives, swords, homemade weapons (bats with nails in them sort of thing). However, I think youre missing the part where the guy who was using the sack of radios as a deadly weapon was, in all likelihood, acting in self defense (since he was being chased down by a guy with a knife).
I dont think arming yourself before going after a thief is unreasonable (although I question the reasonableness of going after a thief if you think they may kill you), I do however think running around with the weapon you have armed yourself with out is unreasonable. If he had a gun and chased the guy down? Should have it in his holster, not in his hand. Same goes with the knife.
Do we know what kind of knife it was? Was it a pocket knife, or a kitchen knife? Because with the latter, trying to shove it into your pocket and then running is a whole system of bad ideas. Alternatively, not having a holster. Lets say a guy is making off with your beloved puppy (theoretical situation), and you dont have your holster but you can grab your gun before taking off. You could stick it in your waistband, but again, very bad idea.
I think it comes down to the knife. Was it something that couldve safely and quickly pocketed or no?
If the safest way to carry the weapon youre choosing to use to chase down a criminal is in your hand, I suggest putting down the weapon and picking up a phone to call the police.