So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
Note: Yes a defendant never has to testify in a criminal trial, but when a defendant puts on an affirmative defense and cannot support that defense through other witnesses, the defendant will basically have to testify to support the defense otherwise the jury will look at them like O_o and the judge might not even allow a jury instruction for self defense because there is no evidentiary basis for the defense.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
SYG doesn't really cause the problems ascribed to it. If you justify killing another person by SYG, the killing is still scrutinized pretty heavily. It does not write out the requirement that you cannot use deadly force unless you reasonably believe that it was necessary to prevent severe harm.
If anything, duty to retreat was often used in Florida as an excuse to convict minorities who had justifiably defended themselves.
SYG isn't even whatsoever relevant to the Zimmerman case; it barely figures into his defense. The real problem in Zimmerman is that there isn't really any evidence one way or another regarding the circumstances of the fight that left Trayvon dead.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
SYG doesn't really cause the problems ascribed to it. If you justify killing another person by SYG, the killing is still scrutinized pretty heavily. It does not write out the requirement that you cannot use deadly force unless you reasonably believe that it was necessary to prevent severe harm.
If anything, duty to retreat was often used in Florida as an excuse to convict minorities who had justifiably defended themselves.
SYG isn't even whatsoever relevant to the Zimmerman case; it barely figures into his defense. The real problem in Zimmerman is that there isn't really any evidence one way or another regarding the circumstances of the fight that left Trayvon dead.
Here's the important part: By law, or by public opinion? Because these things don't always line up.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
Luckily our laws aren't written by morons, so no no you're not.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
Except that it doesn't.
I can already claim self defense, and that I was unable to retreat, absent witnesses. I can also claim to have stood my ground, and be found to have used force unreasonably.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Did you see what happened in Minnesota, then?
No.
Edit: That came off as a little glib. Hedgie, if you want someone to look at something in order to provide an opposing argument please link or quote. Yes I can Google and try to find out what you're referring to but 1) I have no guarantee that it will be what you're talking about, wasting everyone's time and 2) you should do this anyway.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
Luckily our laws aren't written by morons, so no no you're not.
Actually yes. It makes a case for agression which is pretty strong in the Zimmeran case with the rest of, or lack there of, evidence.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
But what if the one with the cuts on his head and broken nose was the assailant to begin with?
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
Will do, I'll pull up the statute and give it a read-through.
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
Luckily our laws aren't written by morons, so no no you're not.
Actually yes. It makes a case for agression which is pretty strong in the Zimmeran case with the rest of, or lack there of, evidence.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't prove who started the fight or who escalated it to physical violence. There isn't enough evidence for us to know, because the cops sucked at their jobs.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
But what if the one with the cuts on his head and broken nose was the assailant to begin with?
From the evidence released under Florida law there is none that is concrete enough to assign aggression that is why it is such a big thing in the case right now. Which is why the Defense waited for things to calm down a bit before releasing the telling photos.
But I mean really, death is not the only means at thwarting a crime, whether you're the victim or aiding the victim. Incapacitation and restraint come in various forms.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
Luckily our laws aren't written by morons, so no no you're not.
Actually yes. It makes a case for agression which is pretty strong in the Zimmeran case with the rest of, or lack there of, evidence.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't prove who started the fight or who escalated it to physical violence. There isn't enough evidence for us to know, because the cops sucked at their jobs.
I didnt say prove agression because there is no evidence that does that. But it makes a case for it and the jury will see it.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Did you see what happened in Minnesota, then?
No.
Edit: That came off as a little glib. Hedgie, if you want someone to look at something in order to provide an opposing argument please link or quote. Yes I can Google and try to find out what you're referring to but 1) I have no guarantee that it will be what you're talking about, wasting everyone's time and 2) you should do this anyway.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Did you see what happened in Minnesota, then?
No.
Edit: That came off as a little glib. Hedgie, if you want someone to look at something in order to provide an opposing argument please link or quote. Yes I can Google and try to find out what you're referring to but 1) I have no guarantee that it will be what you're talking about, wasting everyone's time and 2) you should do this anyway.
As the Daily Beast article points out, if he had stopped shooting once they were on the ground and bleeding, he would likely not be facing any charges. Not to mention, keeping the bodies overnight was pretty bad. Were the kids a threat to him after they were on the ground? Most likely (and probably) not. However, he had no way of knowing this, and in fact could reasonably believe that they intended him harm, which is why his initial shooting of them would have been excused as legitimate self-defense.
I still remain unsympathetic to what ultimately happens to perpetrators who break into occupied homes. Not only are they clearly lacking reasonable judgment in the first place, I believe concerns for one's well being and one's family greatly trump concern for the perpetrator who has potentially put their life in danger.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Did you see what happened in Minnesota, then?
No.
Edit: That came off as a little glib. Hedgie, if you want someone to look at something in order to provide an opposing argument please link or quote. Yes I can Google and try to find out what you're referring to but 1) I have no guarantee that it will be what you're talking about, wasting everyone's time and 2) you should do this anyway.
While the kids were low life human beings for breaking into old people's homes to steal prescription drugs that guy did go over the top. I will agree on that. But is it enough for me to want to write a letter to my lawmakers to change self defense/castle doctorine laws? Not even close.
Seems legit to me. He was justified in using deadly force, but also used additional deadly force after they were clearly no longer a threat. So he's being charged.
Also, that second article is hilarious. "The same rounds used by US forces in Afghanistan..."
Also, he may not have been within his rights with the first shots anyway. I'd have to look at the law in that state. But while intruders may be presumed to pose a deadly threat, there may still be a "reasonably necessary" bar to clear. Obviously the law is usually going to favor the homeowner, though.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
I did a quick case search under the SYG statute and found numerous cases that have gone to trial. Once a defendant puts forth a SYG defense (and they have to put forward the defense), it then becomes the prosecution's duty to rebut that defense, and it seems unless the defense is flakier than flake, the prosecution usually doesn't succeed.
I couldn't find much pre-trial, but if I were to guess it would be when a prosecutor does not have enough for probable cause, thus causing the court to dismiss the charge.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
I did a quick case search under the SYG statute and found numerous cases that have gone to trial. Once a defendant puts forth a SYG defense (and they have to put forward the defense), it then becomes the prosecution's duty to rebut that defense, and it seems unless the defense is flakier than flake, the prosecution usually doesn't succeed.
I couldn't find much pre-trial, but if I were to guess it would be when a prosecutor does not have enough for probable cause, thus causing the court to dismiss the charge.
Whoops, spoke too soon. What I say above applies to standard self-defense in Florida.
This applies to SYG:
When a homicide defendant invokes statutory immunity under justifiable use of force law, the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity, and at this stage, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity.
The fact that SYG is a lot easier to prove than self-defense at trial is a problem.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
I did a quick case search under the SYG statute and found numerous cases that have gone to trial. Once a defendant puts forth a SYG defense (and they have to put forward the defense), it then becomes the prosecution's duty to rebut that defense, and it seems unless the defense is flakier than flake, the prosecution usually doesn't succeed.
I couldn't find much pre-trial, but if I were to guess it would be when a prosecutor does not have enough for probable cause, thus causing the court to dismiss the charge.
Whoops, spoke too soon. What I say above applies to standard self-defense in Florida.
This applies to SYG:
When a homicide defendant invokes statutory immunity under justifiable use of force law, the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity, and at this stage, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity.
The fact that SYG is a lot easier to prove than self-defense at trial is a problem.
Yea! I don't have to figure out why I had a crazy idea in my head.
I'd have a lot less problems with SYG if it didn't short circuit the whole trial by jury thing.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
776.032 is more pertinent.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
I did a quick case search under the SYG statute and found numerous cases that have gone to trial. Once a defendant puts forth a SYG defense (and they have to put forward the defense), it then becomes the prosecution's duty to rebut that defense, and it seems unless the defense is flakier than flake, the prosecution usually doesn't succeed.
I couldn't find much pre-trial, but if I were to guess it would be when a prosecutor does not have enough for probable cause, thus causing the court to dismiss the charge.
Whoops, spoke too soon. What I say above applies to standard self-defense in Florida.
This applies to SYG:
When a homicide defendant invokes statutory immunity under justifiable use of force law, the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity, and at this stage, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity.
The fact that SYG is a lot easier to prove than self-defense at trial is a problem.
Yea! I don't have to figure out why I had a crazy idea in my head.
I'd have a lot less problems with SYG if it didn't short circuit the whole trial by jury thing.
Agreed, making SYG an affirmative defense at trial instead of a lesser-standard of proof get out of prosecution free card would make it substantially better than the current status quo.
So are you in favor of the Death Penalty with regards to burglary?
If not, what's the difference?
We've spent pages upon pages talking about the difference in the past.
But self-defense in the face of a current threat is not to be treated the same as retribution meted out after the fact in a courtroom, no.
I don't favor a death penalty for MURDER. Yet presumably most of us would favor the use if deadly force in the face of an actual deadly threat. So your argument fails.
Yes, but in the case of burglary the castle doctrine removes the requirement to verify it as a deadly threat. Now, stand your ground is doing much the same thing when multiple unarmed persons are being gunned down.
A point to your second post later on, burglary is rarely classified as a violent crime.
I am pretty okay with castle doctrine removing the requirement to verify someone's unlawful breaking and entering into your home while you're present as a deadly threat.
Yea, this was more in relation to how SYG is being viewed as an extension of Castle when it is very very different.
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
I did a quick case search under the SYG statute and found numerous cases that have gone to trial. Once a defendant puts forth a SYG defense (and they have to put forward the defense), it then becomes the prosecution's duty to rebut that defense, and it seems unless the defense is flakier than flake, the prosecution usually doesn't succeed.
I couldn't find much pre-trial, but if I were to guess it would be when a prosecutor does not have enough for probable cause, thus causing the court to dismiss the charge.
Whoops, spoke too soon. What I say above applies to standard self-defense in Florida.
This applies to SYG:
When a homicide defendant invokes statutory immunity under justifiable use of force law, the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity, and at this stage, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity.
The fact that SYG is a lot easier to prove than self-defense at trial is a problem.
Yea! I don't have to figure out why I had a crazy idea in my head.
I'd have a lot less problems with SYG if it didn't short circuit the whole trial by jury thing.
Agreed, making SYG an affirmative defense at trial instead of a lesser-standard of proof get out of prosecution free card would make it substantially better than the current status quo.
It is also an interesting case as can you really charge the man with murder when he is allowed to use deadly force to begin with?
He can only use deadly force as long as the individuals remained a threat.
Exactly. Once you've dragged the body to a tarp, you don't get to keep shooting it.
Also, there's probably some obligation to call the cops in a timely manner. Not sure though.
He didnt do that. It was after he killed him that he dragged him to the tarp.
I'll have to reread. I could swear he finished off the second intruder after moving them. Either way, he continued using force after it could no longer be reasonably seen to be needed.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
Once someone is incapacitated, they are no longer capable of committing such an act.
The fact that SYG is a lot easier to prove than self-defense at trial is a problem.
How so? It seems the standard is the same to me. Am I missing something?
The only difference I see is that it's a judge rather than a jury. But ideally shouldn't the prosecution have enough evidence to go forward to a trial before pressing charges? It seems like if they can't win pre trial, they shouldn't be able to convince a jury either.
Posts
Okay <hugs>
I am not a fan of SYG, but from a legal perspective, it does have some pretty severe disadvantages, similar to self-defense, in that it's an affirmative defense and if a defendant puts it forward, odds are the defendant is going to have to testify, which opens them up to cross-examination.
Obviously. But at the same time, pretty much every single state allows the use of deadly force given a threat of great bodily harm (not necessarily death). You might ask yourself if there's a reason for that.
I was only half serious regarding the iced tea bit, and giving you your own snark back. That said, in nearly every state striking somebody in the face with an iced tea bottle would give them a decent case for using deadly force.
Did you see what happened in Minnesota, then?
If we already allow for this, why does SYG need to exist? SYG extends things to work on assumption of threat, rather than a provable, witnessed act of threat.
If anything, duty to retreat was often used in Florida as an excuse to convict minorities who had justifiably defended themselves.
SYG isn't even whatsoever relevant to the Zimmerman case; it barely figures into his defense. The real problem in Zimmerman is that there isn't really any evidence one way or another regarding the circumstances of the fight that left Trayvon dead.
If one person has cuts all over his head and a broken nose and the other has nothing but minor scrapes on his knuckles and a bullet wound you are safe to assume one way with this situation.
Here's the important part: By law, or by public opinion? Because these things don't always line up.
Luckily our laws aren't written by morons, so no no you're not.
Except that it doesn't.
I can already claim self defense, and that I was unable to retreat, absent witnesses. I can also claim to have stood my ground, and be found to have used force unreasonably.
Also, what kedinik said.
No.
Edit: That came off as a little glib. Hedgie, if you want someone to look at something in order to provide an opposing argument please link or quote. Yes I can Google and try to find out what you're referring to but 1) I have no guarantee that it will be what you're talking about, wasting everyone's time and 2) you should do this anyway.
Actually yes. It makes a case for agression which is pretty strong in the Zimmeran case with the rest of, or lack there of, evidence.
By all means check me on this, but I that SYG in Florida meant a jury never even came into the picture. I'm not referencing the chilling effect on bringing cases to trial but rather the fact that SYG is established by judicial review rather than at trial.
But what if the one with the cuts on his head and broken nose was the assailant to begin with?
Will do, I'll pull up the statute and give it a read-through.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't prove who started the fight or who escalated it to physical violence. There isn't enough evidence for us to know, because the cops sucked at their jobs.
From the evidence released under Florida law there is none that is concrete enough to assign aggression that is why it is such a big thing in the case right now. Which is why the Defense waited for things to calm down a bit before releasing the telling photos.
I didnt say prove agression because there is no evidence that does that. But it makes a case for it and the jury will see it.
Here you go.
Another report.
Thank you.
As the Daily Beast article points out, if he had stopped shooting once they were on the ground and bleeding, he would likely not be facing any charges. Not to mention, keeping the bodies overnight was pretty bad. Were the kids a threat to him after they were on the ground? Most likely (and probably) not. However, he had no way of knowing this, and in fact could reasonably believe that they intended him harm, which is why his initial shooting of them would have been excused as legitimate self-defense.
I still remain unsympathetic to what ultimately happens to perpetrators who break into occupied homes. Not only are they clearly lacking reasonable judgment in the first place, I believe concerns for one's well being and one's family greatly trump concern for the perpetrator who has potentially put their life in danger.
While the kids were low life human beings for breaking into old people's homes to steal prescription drugs that guy did go over the top. I will agree on that. But is it enough for me to want to write a letter to my lawmakers to change self defense/castle doctorine laws? Not even close.
Also, that second article is hilarious. "The same rounds used by US forces in Afghanistan..."
Yeah, okay.
He can only use deadly force as long as the individuals remained a threat.
Yeaaaahhh...there may be a manslaughter charge on the second one, but I really wouldn't want to put that before a jury.
Exactly. Once you've dragged the body to a tarp, you don't get to keep shooting it.
Also, there's probably some obligation to call the cops in a timely manner. Not sure though.
I did a quick case search under the SYG statute and found numerous cases that have gone to trial. Once a defendant puts forth a SYG defense (and they have to put forward the defense), it then becomes the prosecution's duty to rebut that defense, and it seems unless the defense is flakier than flake, the prosecution usually doesn't succeed.
I couldn't find much pre-trial, but if I were to guess it would be when a prosecutor does not have enough for probable cause, thus causing the court to dismiss the charge.
Whoops, spoke too soon. What I say above applies to standard self-defense in Florida.
This applies to SYG:
The fact that SYG is a lot easier to prove than self-defense at trial is a problem.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
He didnt do that. It was after he killed him that he dragged him to the tarp.
Yea! I don't have to figure out why I had a crazy idea in my head.
I'd have a lot less problems with SYG if it didn't short circuit the whole trial by jury thing.
776.032 is more pertinent.
Agreed, making SYG an affirmative defense at trial instead of a lesser-standard of proof get out of prosecution free card would make it substantially better than the current status quo.
Dammit Jubal. Context! :P
Actually that is something we all can agree on.
My bad!
I'll have to reread. I could swear he finished off the second intruder after moving them. Either way, he continued using force after it could no longer be reasonably seen to be needed.
Once someone is incapacitated, they are no longer capable of committing such an act.
How so? It seems the standard is the same to me. Am I missing something?
The only difference I see is that it's a judge rather than a jury. But ideally shouldn't the prosecution have enough evidence to go forward to a trial before pressing charges? It seems like if they can't win pre trial, they shouldn't be able to convince a jury either.