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.
Definitely. If you don't have a way that you're comfortable with to pursue the thief without also simultaneously threatening them (without justification) with deadly force...well, you don't get to. And I'm not comfortable altering the law to allow for the use of deadly force to defend mere property, either. The use of non-deadly force, which can escalate to deadly force, is a different matter. But you don't get to shoot somebody because they're running away with your stereo, and unfortunately as far as the law is concerned chasing them down with knife-in-hand is little different.
And I say "unfortunately" as "unfortunately for the owner of the stereo." I don't consider this to be particularly unfortunate as far as society is concerned.
I'm still not too broken up by the outcome, including the acquittal, but I'm not comfortable altering the law to make this a clearly legal action. Nor am I entirely down with this not going to a full trial, as the prosecution seems (based on my amateur reading of the law) to have met a preponderance burden. As such, this is actually a pretty good example of why the prosecution immunity clause is...not great.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
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.
Yes, in an ideal situation everyone will be able to think rationally in a situation like this and perhaps call the caps rather than chase a guy with your steak knife. Unfortunately, thats asking too much of id wager the majority of the population. Not chasing the guy robbing you goes against human instinct, and that can be hard to overcome (especially in a situation like being robbed.)
And by doing so, youre then relying on the police to get your property back. Fun story: ive personally been mugged once and burglarized twice. One of thos burglaries, we had the full name of the person who did it. Know how many arrests were made? Know how many of the stolen items were returned to their rightful owner? Hint: both questions have the same answer.
El zilcho.
I know a woman whose house was burglarized, knew the names and adresses of the four burglars, and still no arrests. Maybe cops here are more incompetent or overworked than elsewhere, i dont know. What i do know is, even several thousand dollars in lost goods isnt enough to motivate them to bump it up the list, and if youre really unlucky itll be just low enough that insurance wont cover it.
Clearly, these are extremes, and nothing like a car radio (ive had two stolen). Summary... its hard to expect people to act rational in an inheritlantly irrational situation, and if you fall back to the cops theres a very real possibility theyll never do anything about it.
But in no way am i endorsing killing a man JUST for a car radio. The difference in my mind is that Roteta chose to attempt to keep the stolen goods and use them as a weapon, rather than make any attempt to surrender himself or the items.
Clearly, these are extremes, and nothing like a car radio (ive had two stolen). Summary... its hard to expect people to act rational in an inheritlantly irrational situation, and if you fall back to the cops theres a very real possibility theyll never do anything about it.
Also true. Presumably this is something a jury would take into consideration. This is also why, in general, I don't assume Garcia is guilty of a crime in his pursuit...if his intent truly was to carry the knife for potential self-defense, then I think his state of mind makes his actions non-criminal. Or at least less criminal, and not worth pursuing due to the mitigating circumstances.
Thing is, Roteta would still be justified in his use of force, because his reasonable fear is judged from his perspective, which is still "I've got a dude charging at me with a knife in his hand."
But in no way am i endorsing killing a man JUST for a car radio. The difference in my mind is that Roteta chose to attempt to keep the stolen goods and use them as a weapon, rather than make any attempt to surrender himself or the items.
And making the assumption that Garcia didn't intend to threaten with his knife, he was certainly justified in his use of force in response. But I'm only willing to make that assumption based on the general presumption of innocence...I don't actually "buy" it.
Also, I'm curious whether Garcia is facing any charges based on his other actions. Even if cleared in the killing, he still proceeded to sell multiple stereos he clearly knew were stolen. That's, like, super-illegal.
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.
Yes, in an ideal situation everyone will be able to think rationally in a situation like this and perhaps call the caps rather than chase a guy with your steak knife. Unfortunately, thats asking too much of id wager the majority of the population. Not chasing the guy robbing you goes against human instinct, and that can be hard to overcome (especially in a situation like being robbed.)
And by doing so, youre then relying on the police to get your property back. Fun story: ive personally been mugged once and burglarized twice. One of thos burglaries, we had the full name of the person who did it. Know how many arrests were made? Know how many of the stolen items were returned to their rightful owner? Hint: both questions have the same answer.
El zilcho.
I know a woman whose house was burglarized, knew the names and adresses of the four burglars, and still no arrests. Maybe cops here are more incompetent or overworked than elsewhere, i dont know. What i do know is, even several thousand dollars in lost goods isnt enough to motivate them to bump it up the list, and if youre really unlucky itll be just low enough that insurance wont cover it.
Clearly, these are extremes, and nothing like a car radio (ive had two stolen). Summary... its hard to expect people to act rational in an inheritlantly irrational situation, and if you fall back to the cops theres a very real possibility theyll never do anything about it.
But in no way am i endorsing killing a man JUST for a car radio. The difference in my mind is that Roteta chose to attempt to keep the stolen goods and use them as a weapon, rather than make any attempt to surrender himself or the items.
Yes, sometimes shit happens and you have no recourse and that sucks. But stuff is stuff and its not worth someone losing their life over. I never got the shit that was stolen from me back, the cop who came to the scene even told me they werent going to even bother looking for the guilty person, oh well, it sucked but I got over it. Roteta wont. Roteta cant. Roteta's dead. Stuff can be replaced, people cant.
As for it being difficult to act rationally in irrational circumstances, thats not a defense to your criminal actions (barring very extreme circumstances). It may reduce your charges (because you dont have the mens rea necessary for greater charges, but it wont absolve you.
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.
South Dakota (Oddly the #1 violent crimes state in the US. Who knew?) Population 814,180: Crimes per 100,000
|Murder |Rape |Robbery |assault |Burglary |auto Theft
|23 |390 |154 |1,619 |3,181 |795
Nunavut, Canada: Population: 33,220 (Also ranked 1# by province/territory, which I assume is the same as a state.)
|Murder |Rape |Robbery |assault |Burglary |auto Theft
|18.1 |608.1 |42.1 |78.3 |2034.9 |614.1
I mean sure, statistically, you're far less likely to get murdered in Canada. Everything else? Not so much.
No, violent crime is not 'significantly less' per se. Rape in canada is through the roof as well in pretty much all instances. Of course this isn't taking into account actual differences is law, as just shoving someone is considered assault in the US if they decide to call the police on you.
Dont worry, Canada is catching right up. Their crime rate goes up, ours is going down. Year over year. Keep at it, Canada! You can be the best!
Roteta wont. Roteta cant. Roteta's dead. Stuff can be replaced, people cant..
Had the crimes been greater, perhaps more grandiose, and he died from a perhaps more sane self defense, would you still feel that way?
I can agree that human life is precious, but I can't agree that every human life is worth protecting at all costs. Sometimes people make terrible decisions, and sometimes making those terrible decisions they run the risk of dying. Speeding, for instance, is one of those "gee I probably won't die today" things but people die because driving a car is dangerous from the get go.
So is stealing shit.
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
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.
South Dakota (Oddly the #1 violent crimes state in the US. Who knew?) Population 814,180: Crimes per 100,000
|Murder |Rape |Robbery |assault |Burglary |auto Theft
|23 |390 |154 |1,619 |3,181 |795
Nunavut, Canada: Population: 33,220 (Also ranked 1# by province/territory, which I assume is the same as a state.)
|Murder |Rape |Robbery |assault |Burglary |auto Theft
|18.1 |608.1 |42.1 |78.3 |2034.9 |614.1
I mean sure, statistically, you're far less likely to get murdered in Canada. Everything else? Not so much.
No, violent crime is not 'significantly less' per se. Rape in canada is through the roof as well in pretty much all instances. Of course this isn't taking into account actual differences is law, as just shoving someone is considered assault in the US if they decide to call the police on you.
Dont worry, Canada is catching right up. Their crime rate goes up, ours is going down. Year over year. Keep at it, Canada! You can be the best!
I... what?
Your numbers are not only wrong, they're not even the right ones to be looking for. Your SD numbers are for the whole population, not per 100,000. The table at the bottom indicates SD has one of the lowest overall crime rates (47th-lowest violent crime rate) - the murder rate is 2.8 per 100,000 people.
Nunavut... well, aside from the fact that it has about 0.1% of the total population, yes, it's bad. The overall rates in Canada, from your own link (per 100,000):
Unfortunately comparing overall to a middle state is bad too, statistically. Especially if the middle state and higher states are outliers or skew statistics if you use them separately.
Also you'd probably want to trend that. If Canada has seen an increase of 200% over the past 2-3 years and the US has seen a decrease of 200%... well, then, it may look different in 5-10 years.
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
Unfortunately comparing overall to a middle state is bad too, statistically. Especially if the middle state and higher states are outliers or skew statistics if you use them separately.
Also you'd probably want to trend that. If Canada has seen an increase of 200% over the past 2-3 years and the US has seen a decrease of 200%... well, then, it may look different in 5-10 years.
Good point. Total US data for 2010:
Murder 4.8
Robbery 119
Aggravated assault 252
And all of them showing substantial declines since 1991-92.
Roteta wont. Roteta cant. Roteta's dead. Stuff can be replaced, people cant..
Had the crimes been greater, perhaps more grandiose, and he died from a perhaps more sane self defense, would you still feel that way?
I can agree that human life is precious, but I can't agree that every human life is worth protecting at all costs. Sometimes people make terrible decisions, and sometimes making those terrible decisions they run the risk of dying. Speeding, for instance, is one of those "gee I probably won't die today" things but people die because driving a car is dangerous from the get go.
So is stealing shit.
Yes, I can imagine scenarios where people committing crimes put their victims in situations where the protection of their life supersede's the life of the criminal, however I cant think of many scenarios where that happens because of stolen property.
Roteta wont. Roteta cant. Roteta's dead. Stuff can be replaced, people cant..
Had the crimes been greater, perhaps more grandiose, and he died from a perhaps more sane self defense, would you still feel that way?
I can agree that human life is precious, but I can't agree that every human life is worth protecting at all costs. Sometimes people make terrible decisions, and sometimes making those terrible decisions they run the risk of dying. Speeding, for instance, is one of those "gee I probably won't die today" things but people die because driving a car is dangerous from the get go.
So is stealing shit.
Yes, I can imagine scenarios where people committing crimes put their victims in situations where the protection of their life supersede's the life of the criminal, however I cant think of many scenarios where that happens because of stolen property.
If the victim is involved in the theft the situation becomes more complicated than just "stolen property." In particular if the victim is in a situation where they could reasonably use deadly force then we are more likely dealing with other crimes as well.
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
I've always assumed that if you're stealing from me then it's understood that you no longer value your life and are willing to forfeit it by your actions.
Roteta wont. Roteta cant. Roteta's dead. Stuff can be replaced, people cant..
Had the crimes been greater, perhaps more grandiose, and he died from a perhaps more sane self defense, would you still feel that way?
I can agree that human life is precious, but I can't agree that every human life is worth protecting at all costs. Sometimes people make terrible decisions, and sometimes making those terrible decisions they run the risk of dying. Speeding, for instance, is one of those "gee I probably won't die today" things but people die because driving a car is dangerous from the get go.
So is stealing shit.
Yes, I can imagine scenarios where people committing crimes put their victims in situations where the protection of their life supersede's the life of the criminal, however I cant think of many scenarios where that happens because of stolen property.
If the victim is involved in the theft the situation becomes more complicated than just "stolen property." In particular if the victim is in a situation where they could reasonably use deadly force then we are more likely dealing with other crimes as well.
If the victim is involved in the theft it is no longer theft. Its either robbery (which can be responded to with deadly force but probably shouldnt and the distinction is going to be fact specific) or home invasion (which is, I think, just burglary when the people who live there are present). Regardless your statement doesnt actually counter mine since I specifically said "because of stolen property" if the victim is present then the fact pattern includes more than just stolen property.
I've always assumed that if you're stealing from me then it's understood that you no longer value your life and are willing to forfeit it by your actions.
More or less, personally, how I feel. I don't own much, but the stuff I do own I use for making my living. So someone stealing that shit and forcing me to try and rebuild my infrastructure would infuriate me. I'm sure we all like to think we'd think rationally about situations, but flight or fight pretty much makes that impossible. Even people trained to respond to it fuck it up constantly by shooting the fuck out of people.
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
I've always assumed that if you're stealing from me then it's understood that you no longer value your life and are willing to forfeit it by your actions.
More or less, personally, how I feel. I don't own much, but the stuff I do own I use for making my living. So someone stealing that shit and forcing me to try and rebuild my infrastructure would infuriate me. I'm sure we all like to think we'd think rationally about situations, but flight or fight pretty much makes that impossible. Even people trained to respond to it fuck it up constantly by shooting the fuck out of people.
And then you end up in court for killing someone. Being infuriated is not a justification to kill someone. It may be an explanation, but its not a justification.
I've always assumed that if you're stealing from me then it's understood that you no longer value your life and are willing to forfeit it by your actions.
More or less, personally, how I feel. I don't own much, but the stuff I do own I use for making my living. So someone stealing that shit and forcing me to try and rebuild my infrastructure would infuriate me. I'm sure we all like to think we'd think rationally about situations, but flight or fight pretty much makes that impossible. Even people trained to respond to it fuck it up constantly by shooting the fuck out of people.
And then you end up in court for killing someone. Being infuriated is not a justification to kill someone. It may be an explanation, but its not a justification.
Plus, based on my limited understanding of the law, killing someone in anger qualifies you for second degree murder. It's intent but not planning.
So youre defense against second degree murder (heat of passion) is that you werent in the heat of passion and still killed the guy? So first degree murder?
bowen, a confession is a great piece of evidence, but you realize it's not actually *required* to convict someone of murder, right?
I'm imagining, with some amusement, the shitstorm if The Cat came in here and applied the same "I don't care what the law says, Imma murder the motherfucker" logic to, say, guys who grabbed her ass.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
bowen, a confession is a great piece of evidence, but you realize it's not actually *required* to convict someone of murder, right?
I'm imagining, with some amusement, the shitstorm if The Cat came in here and applied the same "I don't care what the law says, Imma murder the motherfucker" logic to, say, guys who grabbed her ass.
In this context I was in pursuit of someone who stole shit, kept the shit in a large bag, and tried to beat me with the shit when it was stolen, anger and a legitimate self defense aren't mutually exclusive, they can exist at the same time.
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
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
It would be kind of hard to explain why I backed over him with my car after the fact, "Just to make sure."
bowen, a confession is a great piece of evidence, but you realize it's not actually *required* to convict someone of murder, right?
I'm imagining, with some amusement, the shitstorm if The Cat came in here and applied the same "I don't care what the law says, Imma murder the motherfucker" logic to, say, guys who grabbed her ass.
In this context I was in pursuit of someone who stole shit, kept the shit in a large bag, and tried to beat me with the shit when it was stolen, anger and a legitimate self defense aren't mutually exclusive, they can exist at the same time.
Legitimate self defense requires fear. Personally, Ive never been afraid and angry at the same time. Ive been afraid and then angry, but actions taken while afraid have a different culpability than actions taken while angry.
Now, stealing something and valuing your life are two things that can happen at the same time.
bowen, a confession is a great piece of evidence, but you realize it's not actually *required* to convict someone of murder, right?
I'm imagining, with some amusement, the shitstorm if The Cat came in here and applied the same "I don't care what the law says, Imma murder the motherfucker" logic to, say, guys who grabbed her ass.
In this context I was in pursuit of someone who stole shit, kept the shit in a large bag, and tried to beat me with the shit when it was stolen, anger and a legitimate self defense aren't mutually exclusive, they can exist at the same time.
Of course. You'd still need to have both, though. "I was angry so that counts, right?" actually doesn't.
But I know what the reaction would be to "He grabbed my ass, so I was in reasonable fear that he was going to rape me, and I shot him."
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Why do I have to wait for him to shove me to the ground and start pulling off his pants? He grabbed me in a sexually aggressive way, and he didn't just keep walking. The guy outweighs me by a hundred pounds. Was I supposed to wait until he beat me unconscious or pinned my arms before deciding to protect myself?
I mean, you can debate whether or not that was a "reasonable" fear in the example, but I don't think you can honestly say it's any less justifiable than "Fucker stole my radio". I don't get how "if you take my shit, you are putting your life at risk" is any more sensible than "if you grab my tits or my ass without permission, you are putting your life at risk".
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Even if he ever smoked pot or posted rap lyrics on Twitter? Because I hear that makes a guy a total thug who deserves to get shot. I probably should have added retconning to my example, huh. "The guy grabbed my ass-- and later, I found out that he called his ex-girlfriend a bitch on his Facebook page! So clearly I was right to shoot his possibly-rapey head off."
ETA: also, seriously, 'you could argue it either way'? So you could sensibly argue that it's perfectly justifiable to waste a guy for taking your radio, even if you're not in fear of getting hurt or dying, but maybe not OK to kill him for sexual battery?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The guy killed for taking my radio, has already committed the crime, for one, and I pursued him with (in the original notion) that I wanted it back. Then I was attacked with a deadly weapon.
The analog would be if I asked the rapist for my sex back, after the act, and they hit me with their dick in the eye. Or for the touch they stole without my permission.
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
Yes, they're different crimes. One is an aggressive physical act (sexual battery) which makes it clear that the person is already willing to violate your boundaries and do something to you physically that gets them excited. The other is taking a piece of fungible property.
I'm not talking about the original notion of "I pursued the thief and he tried to kill me". I'm talking about the later argument from TTODewback:
I've always assumed that if you're stealing from me then it's understood that you no longer value your life and are willing to forfeit it by your actions.
....and your seeming agreement with this statement when you quoted it.
Again, all I'm doing is substituting "grabbing my body" for "stealing from me", so what's the problem? Surely you can agree that an aggressive sexual attack is more offensive, and more likely to create a reasonable fear of harm, than taking a radio?
BTW, in your he-tried-to-kill-me analogy, it would be trying to get the person to step away from you and having them respond in a threatening way.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You could frame either opposition, or support, to the legalities of the action of shooting someone in those sets of circumstances as prevented by either lack of or proof of evidence.
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
I'm now thinking of what Orwell said about clear language.
"If you do something that truly pisses me off, I have the right to shoot you" is not the law, at least in the US. The "legalities" of using deadly force (at least in the US) require reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. The statement about 'if you steal my stuff your life is forfeit', with which you agreed, has nothing to do with any legalities (nor does 'grab my ass and I'll end you'). You're intentionally conflating questions about the guy chasing down the radio thief with the later agreement that stealing radios in and of itself is an action which justifies deadly force.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
That is immaterial, we have clarified the meanings. And I'm not on trial so may casual response to fuck people that break the law isn't on trial either.
"You could frame the crime either way" is pretty clear, especially in the context of this thread, assuming you know how evidence works. It was you taking my comment and trying to extort it to get me to admit to "yes it's totally okay for some woman to shoot a guy that grabbed her ass" and thus you could hand point and go "hey this guy is an asshole and that's not how law works" and then continue to bring it up every time I make a passing comment like "oh hey skittles has no bearing on this kid's innocence."
This is why you corrected your what-if when I made the joke about beating someone in the eye with their penis.
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
Even if he ever smoked pot or posted rap lyrics on Twitter? Because I hear that makes a guy a total thug who deserves to get shot.
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that.
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying "having only Skittles on him made Martin a totally upstanding citizen", nor that he was an "angel". Either strawmanning bullshit is okay, or it's not.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I think a reasonable person reads bowen's everyday, average post and first wonders what parts are: A) jokes, sarcasm, and 3) real arguments. A good amount falls into the former two and shouldn't be taken in context of the third.
Posts
Definitely. If you don't have a way that you're comfortable with to pursue the thief without also simultaneously threatening them (without justification) with deadly force...well, you don't get to. And I'm not comfortable altering the law to allow for the use of deadly force to defend mere property, either. The use of non-deadly force, which can escalate to deadly force, is a different matter. But you don't get to shoot somebody because they're running away with your stereo, and unfortunately as far as the law is concerned chasing them down with knife-in-hand is little different.
And I say "unfortunately" as "unfortunately for the owner of the stereo." I don't consider this to be particularly unfortunate as far as society is concerned.
I'm still not too broken up by the outcome, including the acquittal, but I'm not comfortable altering the law to make this a clearly legal action. Nor am I entirely down with this not going to a full trial, as the prosecution seems (based on my amateur reading of the law) to have met a preponderance burden. As such, this is actually a pretty good example of why the prosecution immunity clause is...not great.
Yes, in an ideal situation everyone will be able to think rationally in a situation like this and perhaps call the caps rather than chase a guy with your steak knife. Unfortunately, thats asking too much of id wager the majority of the population. Not chasing the guy robbing you goes against human instinct, and that can be hard to overcome (especially in a situation like being robbed.)
And by doing so, youre then relying on the police to get your property back. Fun story: ive personally been mugged once and burglarized twice. One of thos burglaries, we had the full name of the person who did it. Know how many arrests were made? Know how many of the stolen items were returned to their rightful owner? Hint: both questions have the same answer.
El zilcho.
I know a woman whose house was burglarized, knew the names and adresses of the four burglars, and still no arrests. Maybe cops here are more incompetent or overworked than elsewhere, i dont know. What i do know is, even several thousand dollars in lost goods isnt enough to motivate them to bump it up the list, and if youre really unlucky itll be just low enough that insurance wont cover it.
Clearly, these are extremes, and nothing like a car radio (ive had two stolen). Summary... its hard to expect people to act rational in an inheritlantly irrational situation, and if you fall back to the cops theres a very real possibility theyll never do anything about it.
But in no way am i endorsing killing a man JUST for a car radio. The difference in my mind is that Roteta chose to attempt to keep the stolen goods and use them as a weapon, rather than make any attempt to surrender himself or the items.
Also true. Presumably this is something a jury would take into consideration. This is also why, in general, I don't assume Garcia is guilty of a crime in his pursuit...if his intent truly was to carry the knife for potential self-defense, then I think his state of mind makes his actions non-criminal. Or at least less criminal, and not worth pursuing due to the mitigating circumstances.
Thing is, Roteta would still be justified in his use of force, because his reasonable fear is judged from his perspective, which is still "I've got a dude charging at me with a knife in his hand."
And making the assumption that Garcia didn't intend to threaten with his knife, he was certainly justified in his use of force in response. But I'm only willing to make that assumption based on the general presumption of innocence...I don't actually "buy" it.
Also, I'm curious whether Garcia is facing any charges based on his other actions. Even if cleared in the killing, he still proceeded to sell multiple stereos he clearly knew were stolen. That's, like, super-illegal.
Yes, sometimes shit happens and you have no recourse and that sucks. But stuff is stuff and its not worth someone losing their life over. I never got the shit that was stolen from me back, the cop who came to the scene even told me they werent going to even bother looking for the guilty person, oh well, it sucked but I got over it. Roteta wont. Roteta cant. Roteta's dead. Stuff can be replaced, people cant.
As for it being difficult to act rationally in irrational circumstances, thats not a defense to your criminal actions (barring very extreme circumstances). It may reduce your charges (because you dont have the mens rea necessary for greater charges, but it wont absolve you.
I just wanted to respond to this:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/sdcrime.htm
http://www2.macleans.ca/crime-chart/
I mean sure, statistically, you're far less likely to get murdered in Canada. Everything else? Not so much.
No, violent crime is not 'significantly less' per se. Rape in canada is through the roof as well in pretty much all instances. Of course this isn't taking into account actual differences is law, as just shoving someone is considered assault in the US if they decide to call the police on you.
Dont worry, Canada is catching right up. Their crime rate goes up, ours is going down. Year over year. Keep at it, Canada! You can be the best!
Had the crimes been greater, perhaps more grandiose, and he died from a perhaps more sane self defense, would you still feel that way?
I can agree that human life is precious, but I can't agree that every human life is worth protecting at all costs. Sometimes people make terrible decisions, and sometimes making those terrible decisions they run the risk of dying. Speeding, for instance, is one of those "gee I probably won't die today" things but people die because driving a car is dangerous from the get go.
So is stealing shit.
I... what?
Your numbers are not only wrong, they're not even the right ones to be looking for. Your SD numbers are for the whole population, not per 100,000. The table at the bottom indicates SD has one of the lowest overall crime rates (47th-lowest violent crime rate) - the murder rate is 2.8 per 100,000 people.
Nunavut... well, aside from the fact that it has about 0.1% of the total population, yes, it's bad. The overall rates in Canada, from your own link (per 100,000):
Murder - 1.6
Aggravated assault - 10
Robbery - 89.1
This is what a middling state looks like (AL, #23 on violent crimes index)
Murder - 7.6
Aggravated assault - 252.1
Robbery - 157
(I left out sexual assault/rape because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.)
Also you'd probably want to trend that. If Canada has seen an increase of 200% over the past 2-3 years and the US has seen a decrease of 200%... well, then, it may look different in 5-10 years.
Good point. Total US data for 2010:
Murder 4.8
Robbery 119
Aggravated assault 252
And all of them showing substantial declines since 1991-92.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.pdf
Page 6 has the total crime rates - also showing declines since the early 90's.
Yes, I can imagine scenarios where people committing crimes put their victims in situations where the protection of their life supersede's the life of the criminal, however I cant think of many scenarios where that happens because of stolen property.
If the victim is involved in the theft the situation becomes more complicated than just "stolen property." In particular if the victim is in a situation where they could reasonably use deadly force then we are more likely dealing with other crimes as well.
If the victim is involved in the theft it is no longer theft. Its either robbery (which can be responded to with deadly force but probably shouldnt and the distinction is going to be fact specific) or home invasion (which is, I think, just burglary when the people who live there are present). Regardless your statement doesnt actually counter mine since I specifically said "because of stolen property" if the victim is present then the fact pattern includes more than just stolen property.
More or less, personally, how I feel. I don't own much, but the stuff I do own I use for making my living. So someone stealing that shit and forcing me to try and rebuild my infrastructure would infuriate me. I'm sure we all like to think we'd think rationally about situations, but flight or fight pretty much makes that impossible. Even people trained to respond to it fuck it up constantly by shooting the fuck out of people.
And then you end up in court for killing someone. Being infuriated is not a justification to kill someone. It may be an explanation, but its not a justification.
Plus, based on my limited understanding of the law, killing someone in anger qualifies you for second degree murder. It's intent but not planning.
So youre defense against second degree murder (heat of passion) is that you werent in the heat of passion and still killed the guy? So first degree murder?
I'm imagining, with some amusement, the shitstorm if The Cat came in here and applied the same "I don't care what the law says, Imma murder the motherfucker" logic to, say, guys who grabbed her ass.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
In this context I was in pursuit of someone who stole shit, kept the shit in a large bag, and tried to beat me with the shit when it was stolen, anger and a legitimate self defense aren't mutually exclusive, they can exist at the same time.
Legitimate self defense requires fear. Personally, Ive never been afraid and angry at the same time. Ive been afraid and then angry, but actions taken while afraid have a different culpability than actions taken while angry.
Now, stealing something and valuing your life are two things that can happen at the same time.
Ever been happy and sad? Kid wandered off and you thought they were kidnapped but returned? Bet you'd probably feel happy and angry.
Of course. You'd still need to have both, though. "I was angry so that counts, right?" actually doesn't.
But I know what the reaction would be to "He grabbed my ass, so I was in reasonable fear that he was going to rape me, and I shot him."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I mean, you can debate whether or not that was a "reasonable" fear in the example, but I don't think you can honestly say it's any less justifiable than "Fucker stole my radio". I don't get how "if you take my shit, you are putting your life at risk" is any more sensible than "if you grab my tits or my ass without permission, you are putting your life at risk".
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
But if he had some skittles on him he's a totally upstanding citizen.
ETA: also, seriously, 'you could argue it either way'? So you could sensibly argue that it's perfectly justifiable to waste a guy for taking your radio, even if you're not in fear of getting hurt or dying, but maybe not OK to kill him for sexual battery?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The guy killed for taking my radio, has already committed the crime, for one, and I pursued him with (in the original notion) that I wanted it back. Then I was attacked with a deadly weapon.
The analog would be if I asked the rapist for my sex back, after the act, and they hit me with their dick in the eye. Or for the touch they stole without my permission.
I'm not talking about the original notion of "I pursued the thief and he tried to kill me". I'm talking about the later argument from TTODewback:
....and your seeming agreement with this statement when you quoted it.
Again, all I'm doing is substituting "grabbing my body" for "stealing from me", so what's the problem? Surely you can agree that an aggressive sexual attack is more offensive, and more likely to create a reasonable fear of harm, than taking a radio?
BTW, in your he-tried-to-kill-me analogy, it would be trying to get the person to step away from you and having them respond in a threatening way.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Like I said, you could frame it either way.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
"If you do something that truly pisses me off, I have the right to shoot you" is not the law, at least in the US. The "legalities" of using deadly force (at least in the US) require reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. The statement about 'if you steal my stuff your life is forfeit', with which you agreed, has nothing to do with any legalities (nor does 'grab my ass and I'll end you'). You're intentionally conflating questions about the guy chasing down the radio thief with the later agreement that stealing radios in and of itself is an action which justifies deadly force.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
"You could frame the crime either way" is pretty clear, especially in the context of this thread, assuming you know how evidence works. It was you taking my comment and trying to extort it to get me to admit to "yes it's totally okay for some woman to shoot a guy that grabbed her ass" and thus you could hand point and go "hey this guy is an asshole and that's not how law works" and then continue to bring it up every time I make a passing comment like "oh hey skittles has no bearing on this kid's innocence."
This is why you corrected your what-if when I made the joke about beating someone in the eye with their penis.
Argh, my head. Trayvon Martin shooting range targets for sale. Claaaaassy.
I don't recall anyone in this thread saying "having only Skittles on him made Martin a totally upstanding citizen", nor that he was an "angel". Either strawmanning bullshit is okay, or it's not.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.