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.
Oh I am not arguing that he didnt go over the top. His own statements will most likely damn him. But it doesnt mean that the kids were not stupid either and that I have sympathy for them.
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.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
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.
Sorry, I'm unclear what you're getting at.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
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.
Oh I am not arguing that he didnt go over the top. His own statements will most likely damn him. But it doesnt mean that the kids were not stupid either and that I have sympathy for them.
I'm gonna go ahead and feel a twinge of sympathy for the one who was shot once then had a gun put to her head to "put her out of her misery".
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.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
Note that an argument can be made that the standard itself is bad. But I'm just saying that its the same both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. From what I can tell. So the point is to allow a judge to spare the accused the burden of a trial that the prosecution lacks the evidence to actually win.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm unsure what the prosecutions options are for retrying at a later date, given new evidence. Hopefully they'd be able to.
It's kinda like the statute saying that police can't conduct an investigation either, absent probable cause. Well, yeah. Duh. That's already supposed to be the case.
As bad as it sounds, it seems like those parts of the law are really just saying the police can't harass you without probable cause, and the prosecutors can't wreck your life by bringing a case against you they have no reasonable expectation of winning.
Say what you will about the burden of proof and use of force in general, but neither of these protections seem absurd.
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.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
Note that an argument can be made that the standard itself is bad. But I'm just saying that its the same both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. From what I can tell. So the point is to allow a judge to spare the accused the burden of a trial that the prosecution lacks the evidence to actually win.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm unsure what the prosecutions options are for retrying at a later date, given new evidence. Hopefully they'd be able to.
It's kinda like the statute saying that police can't conduct an investigation either, absent probable cause. Well, yeah. Duh. That's already supposed to be the case.
As bad as it sounds, it seems like those parts of the law are really just saying the police can't harass you without probable cause, and the prosecutors can't wreck your life by bringing a case against you they have no reasonable expectation of winning.
Say what you will about the burden of proof and use of force in general, but neither of these protections seem absurd.
Well, preponderance of the evidence is a substantially lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm having trouble articulating why this entire thing seems lopsided to me. In a criminal trial, defendant has certain advantages in that they have to literally prove nothing and the entire onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence showing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But there seems something amiss about defendant having the ability to put forth a low burden of proof to have their case dismissed.
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.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
Note that an argument can be made that the standard itself is bad. But I'm just saying that its the same both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. From what I can tell. So the point is to allow a judge to spare the accused the burden of a trial that the prosecution lacks the evidence to actually win.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm unsure what the prosecutions options are for retrying at a later date, given new evidence. Hopefully they'd be able to.
It's kinda like the statute saying that police can't conduct an investigation either, absent probable cause. Well, yeah. Duh. That's already supposed to be the case.
As bad as it sounds, it seems like those parts of the law are really just saying the police can't harass you without probable cause, and the prosecutors can't wreck your life by bringing a case against you they have no reasonable expectation of winning.
Say what you will about the burden of proof and use of force in general, but neither of these protections seem absurd.
Well, preponderance of the evidence is a substantially lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm having trouble articulating why this entire thing seems lopsided to me. In a criminal trial, defendant has certain advantages in that they have to literally prove nothing and the entire onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence showing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But there seems something amiss about defendant having the ability to put forth a low burden of proof to have their case dismissed.
It seems inaccurate to label preponderance of evidence as "low" given that it pretty much literally means "more than 50% chance".
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
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.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
Note that an argument can be made that the standard itself is bad. But I'm just saying that its the same both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. From what I can tell. So the point is to allow a judge to spare the accused the burden of a trial that the prosecution lacks the evidence to actually win.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm unsure what the prosecutions options are for retrying at a later date, given new evidence. Hopefully they'd be able to.
It's kinda like the statute saying that police can't conduct an investigation either, absent probable cause. Well, yeah. Duh. That's already supposed to be the case.
As bad as it sounds, it seems like those parts of the law are really just saying the police can't harass you without probable cause, and the prosecutors can't wreck your life by bringing a case against you they have no reasonable expectation of winning.
Say what you will about the burden of proof and use of force in general, but neither of these protections seem absurd.
Well, preponderance of the evidence is a substantially lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm having trouble articulating why this entire thing seems lopsided to me. In a criminal trial, defendant has certain advantages in that they have to literally prove nothing and the entire onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence showing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But there seems something amiss about defendant having the ability to put forth a low burden of proof to have their case dismissed.
It seems inaccurate to label preponderance of evidence as "low" given that it pretty much literally means "more than 50% chance".
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.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
Note that an argument can be made that the standard itself is bad. But I'm just saying that its the same both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. From what I can tell. So the point is to allow a judge to spare the accused the burden of a trial that the prosecution lacks the evidence to actually win.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm unsure what the prosecutions options are for retrying at a later date, given new evidence. Hopefully they'd be able to.
It's kinda like the statute saying that police can't conduct an investigation either, absent probable cause. Well, yeah. Duh. That's already supposed to be the case.
As bad as it sounds, it seems like those parts of the law are really just saying the police can't harass you without probable cause, and the prosecutors can't wreck your life by bringing a case against you they have no reasonable expectation of winning.
Say what you will about the burden of proof and use of force in general, but neither of these protections seem absurd.
Well, preponderance of the evidence is a substantially lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm having trouble articulating why this entire thing seems lopsided to me. In a criminal trial, defendant has certain advantages in that they have to literally prove nothing and the entire onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence showing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But there seems something amiss about defendant having the ability to put forth a low burden of proof to have their case dismissed.
It seems inaccurate to label preponderance of evidence as "low" given that it pretty much literally means "more than 50% chance".
I will accept this correction.
I wouldnt since when the facts are murky it basically comes down to who is a more compelling oral advocate.
I wouldnt since when the facts are murky it basically comes down to who is a more compelling oral advocate.
Which, given the burden on the prosecution as established in Florida, is no different than it would be at trial. Compelling testimony from the confused, absent evidence to rebut the story, can establish reasonable doubt...leading to acquittal.
At least at pretrial, the accused has to establish preponderance of evidence...maybe you want to call that a "low" standard, but the standard at trial is even lower. Which is precisely why failure by the prosecution to meet preponderance at pretrial should preclude going to a full trial.
Posts
Oh I am not arguing that he didnt go over the top. His own statements will most likely damn him. But it doesnt mean that the kids were not stupid either and that I have sympathy for them.
You make a good point, and I'll mull this over for a while.
Sorry, I'm unclear what you're getting at.
I'm gonna go ahead and feel a twinge of sympathy for the one who was shot once then had a gun put to her head to "put her out of her misery".
Note that an argument can be made that the standard itself is bad. But I'm just saying that its the same both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. From what I can tell. So the point is to allow a judge to spare the accused the burden of a trial that the prosecution lacks the evidence to actually win.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm unsure what the prosecutions options are for retrying at a later date, given new evidence. Hopefully they'd be able to.
It's kinda like the statute saying that police can't conduct an investigation either, absent probable cause. Well, yeah. Duh. That's already supposed to be the case.
As bad as it sounds, it seems like those parts of the law are really just saying the police can't harass you without probable cause, and the prosecutors can't wreck your life by bringing a case against you they have no reasonable expectation of winning.
Say what you will about the burden of proof and use of force in general, but neither of these protections seem absurd.
Well, preponderance of the evidence is a substantially lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm having trouble articulating why this entire thing seems lopsided to me. In a criminal trial, defendant has certain advantages in that they have to literally prove nothing and the entire onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence showing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But there seems something amiss about defendant having the ability to put forth a low burden of proof to have their case dismissed.
If you, as a prosecutor, can't beat preponderance pre trial, how can you expect to beat reasonable doubt at trial?
It seems inaccurate to label preponderance of evidence as "low" given that it pretty much literally means "more than 50% chance".
I will accept this correction.
I wouldnt since when the facts are murky it basically comes down to who is a more compelling oral advocate.
Which, given the burden on the prosecution as established in Florida, is no different than it would be at trial. Compelling testimony from the confused, absent evidence to rebut the story, can establish reasonable doubt...leading to acquittal.
At least at pretrial, the accused has to establish preponderance of evidence...maybe you want to call that a "low" standard, but the standard at trial is even lower. Which is precisely why failure by the prosecution to meet preponderance at pretrial should preclude going to a full trial.