|
ActusRhesus posted:It's justified if the victim was objectively bad, the defendant was objectively good, and the victim absolutely unquestionably would have murdered the defendant as decided later... With the benefit of hindsight... By an Internet forum. Thank you this is what I have been saying. Can you help me write this in statute form for free.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Devor posted:So if you are negligent and/or reckless, with a reasonable belief that your actions are going to create a situation where you're likely to defend yourself with lethal force, that's a good result? We're happy that the current laws don't prevent that situation? #3 is impossible
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:#3 is impossible Literally what the Nevada killer did. He was reckless in that he knew, or should have known, that busting down the door at night, gun ready, would be likely to cause another's death. He knew his own mind, and knew he was ready to shoot at a moment's notice. Edit: I may be conflating reckless and negligent. The essence stands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Devor posted:We can quibble over the exact phrasing, but the bottom line is that the Nevada man "Knew, or should have known, and a reasonable person should have known that his actions would be likely to cause this self-defense killing" (Negligent and/or reckless). Entering his own property is not a proximate cause of him killing an attacker, the attacker attacking him is. Also this interpretation would require us to establish he had a duty not to enter his own property, or a duty to avoid a place he has a right to be because he can foresee someone else victimizing him. And yes, the jury believed him that he had an honest and reasonable belief that he was under attack, so that is the standard to which his actions are judged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Entering his own property is not a proximate cause of him killing an attacker, the attacker attacking him is. He wasn't attacked. And you keep ignoring that he didn't enter his property in a reasonable and safe manner. He busted open the door in the middle of the night brandishing a pistol and fired at the first thing that moved. Which is why I have a harder time giving him the benefit of the doubt than say if he had served notice in the day time with a knock on the door, or waited until they were gone, put a notice on the door, and filed an eviction suit if they didn't vacate, or called the police first whose job it is to deal with trespassers. My landlady has the right to enter my apartment, that doesn't mean she's not being reckless if she busts through the window at 5am and shoots me when I start up. But how can she face legal consequences for that, VitalSigns, are you saying she has no right to enter her own apartment? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Entering his own property is not a proximate cause of him killing an attacker, the attacker attacking him is. We're talking about 'should' rather than 'is', so feel free to stop talking about how a jury applied the law as it 'is' to let him get away with what 'should' be a crime. He knew his own mind, that he was ready to shoot at small movements. Breaking down a door and yelling the middle of the night are something he should have known would cause small movements. He then shot someone as a result of a small movement. I agree that we, as members of society, have duty not to take actions that we should know have a good chance of leading to death. Especially when there are other options available, like "Wait until daylight, knock" or "Call the police".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He wasn't attacked. Jarmak posted:And yes, the jury believed him that he had an honest and reasonable belief that he was under attack, so that is the standard to which his actions are judged. The jury completely disagrees with your version of events
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The jury completely disagrees with your version of events Well since we already know what the jury thinks maybe you should go away/shut the gently caress up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The jury completely disagrees with your version of events The jury applies the law as it is, we are discussing the law as it should be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The jury completely disagrees with your version of events No, my version of events is what happened. The jury disagreed with my judgment of the reasonableness of those events, but juries are just random schmoes who gives a gently caress. Was OJ not a killer because the jury believed him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Do you guys read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and nod sagely when the verdict is revealed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, my version of events is what happened. So your proposal is to find a way to circumvent the jury? Is this for all criminal cases or just ones where you want a conviction?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He wasn't attacked. The guy sounds like an rear end in a top hat and did things I wouldn't but this really doesn't sound like a case where a prosecutor could expect to clear the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Also landlords abide by very different standards than someone who is not renting a property out who runs into trespassers in their property. Comparing a legally recognized rental agreement with this case is legally irrelevant and generally stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:We're talking about 'should' rather than 'is', so feel free to stop talking about how a jury applied the law as it 'is' to let him get away with what 'should' be a crime. Woozy posted:Well since we already know what the jury thinks maybe you should go away/shut the gently caress up? The jury didn't "apply the law as it is" to let him get away, juries don't even apply the law. The jury decided the literal facts of the situation as VitalSigns described them is not what they believe happened, which is why he was acquitted. Devor posted:I agree that we, as members of society, have duty not to take actions that we should know have a good chance of leading to death. Especially when there are other options available, like "Wait until daylight, knock" or "Call the police". Yes clearly as members of society we should punish victims of an attack for letting themselves be in a position where they were should have known someone would victimize them. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
I honestly don't get why you're defending this guy, Jarmak. You and I both agree that people have the right to use deadly force in self defense. We both agree that you shouldn't instigate a situation that will lead to you having to kill in self defense if that situation is reasonably foreseeable and avoidable. Busting down the door to an occupied dwelling that you own in the middle of the night can pretty reasonably foreseeably lead to a violent confrontation where someone might die, don't do that? Especially because there is a legal process for evicting squatters and a ton of totally reasonable less confrontational ways to deliver the notice to vacate that don't involve surprising possibly-armed people in the dark?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes clearly as members of society we should punish victims of an attack for letting themselves be in a position where they were should have none someone would victimize them. Yes, if you know that your action is likely to cause you to shoot someone, you should be punished when you shoot someone. He "let himself" break down a door with a gun ready.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The guy sounds like an rear end in a top hat and did things I wouldn't but this really doesn't sound like a case where a prosecutor could expect to clear the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Actually, occupants still have legal rights even if they entered by force, and still have to be given notice to vacate and be evicted by the cops if they refuse, not chased out at 5am at gunpoint. If you shoot someone in a dangerous situation, it is totally expected that we should look at your contribution to creating the situation and the foreseeability and reasonableness of avoiding it. Being an rear end in a top hat is fine, being enough of an rear end in a top hat that you create a violent situation and then shoot your way out of it is not so fine imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The jury didn't "apply the law as it is" to let him get away, juries don't even apply the law. The jury decided the literal facts of the situation as VitalSigns described them is not what they believe happened, which is why he was acquitted. No one is asking "why he was acquitted". That's obvious to people who aren't idiots (incidentally your explanation is wrong). Why are you defending the ruling is a more interesting question, or at least it would be if you were anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I honestly don't get why you're defending this guy, Jarmak. You and I both agree that people have the right to use deadly force in self defense. We both agree that you shouldn't instigate a situation that will lead to you having to kill in self defense if that situation is reasonably foreseeable and avoidable. I'm not defending the guy, I'm defending the process and the law with which he was judged because I think the process was fine and the law is fine. Radish posted:Do you guys read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and nod sagely when the verdict is revealed? Did you read that book and come to the conclusion circumventing the law to get a desired outcome was a good thing? Because if you think you're arguing the side of Atticus by suggesting we ignore juries and law and punish people based on gut feelings then you need to read that book again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually, occupants still have legal rights even if they entered by force, and still have to be given notice to vacate and be evicted by the cops if they refuse, not chased out at 5am at gunpoint. Apparently not  Again, guy sounds like an rear end in a top hat, but you are saying what he did is illegal when it apparently wasn't or at least could not be proven to be illegal. Those saying any situation you put yourself into where you think you might have to kill someone should be punishable are bonkers though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Devor posted:Yes, if you know that your action is likely to cause you to shoot someone, you should be punished when you shoot someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
What OJ did couldn't be proven to be criminal, so I guess it was fine!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, my version of events is what happened. Your version is incorrect. He was actually dual wielding pistols, like a loving counter strike match, when he kicked the door open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's the limit on this? A battered spouse knows that if she stays in her home, her husband will eventually attack her, can she stay in her home, and potentially use lethal force to defend herself from a lethal threat, or does she possess a duty to flee anywhere she might reasonably suspect her husband to be? There's no duty to flee your home to avoid a domestic violence situation in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, even the ones that impose a duty to retreat in other places, so apparently these distinctions can be made after all hth
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What OJ did couldn't be proven to be criminal, so I guess it was fine! More like OJ, a guy I personally believe to be a murderer, is not evidence that we live in a land of broken courts. All the people whose lives are ruined by petty convictions are better evidence of a broken set of laws and court processes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's no duty to flee your home to avoid a domestic violence situation in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, even the ones that impose a duty to retreat in other places, so apparently these distinctions can be made after all hth
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not defending the guy, I'm defending the process and the law with which he was judged because I think the process was fine and the law is fine. When you try to use "the jury thought differently" as a masterstroke response I don't see how you don't read the jury in that case as being correct since they made their decision and thus the man with a crippled arm must have done that crime. Pointing out that it's clear this guy engineered a situation for legal murder based on his actions, statements, and the time of day he decided to enter the property and got away with it isn't calling for the entire jury system to be nullified or extrajudicial justice be applied and it's really disingenuous that people are arguing around that presumption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Woozy posted:No one is asking "why he was acquitted". That's obvious to people who aren't idiots (incidentally your explanation is wrong). Because I thought we were having a policy discussion about self defense laws not just circle jerking about this guy being an rear end in a top hat. VitalSigns posted:Actually, occupants still have legal rights even if they entered by force, and still have to be given notice to vacate and be evicted by the cops if they refuse, not chased out at 5am at gunpoint. Its actually very unclear in NV as per our debate yesterday, since the owner is obligated to tell them to leave before being able to have law enforcement remove them by force and its unclear whether these people actually qualified as committing criminal trespass or if it was forcible detainer (squatting). Since the prosecution didn't even attempt to raise this issue at trial I'm inclined to think they don't actually have any of the rights you're claiming in this instance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are we discussing what is currently legal or what should be legal? As far as what is currently legal, the Nevada guy didn't have a duty to retreat earlier, so the person I quoted is wrong. If we're discussing what should be legal this is entirely irrelevant. But your slippery slope was a bad and wrong argument, because other states do impose a duty to retreat without imposing such a duty on battered wives, so bringing it up was irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:When you try to use "the jury thought differently" as a masterstroke response I don't see how you don't read the jury in that case as being correct since they made their decision and thus the man with a crippled arm must have done that crime. Pointing out that it's clear this guy engineered a situation for legal murder based on his actions, statements, and the time of day he decided to enter the property and got away with it isn't calling for the entire jury system to be nullified or extrajudicial justice be applied and it's really disingenuous that people are arguing around that presumption. Look, its loving dumb to say "self defense laws are bad" and "he engineered a way to commit legal murder" because a jury decided the narrative presented by vitalsigns (and the prosecutor) was reasonable self defense, they didn't. They decided the evidence did not support that narrative, or at least they had enough doubt not convict based on it, that's why he was acquitted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's the limit on this? A battered spouse knows that if she stays in her home, her husband will eventually attack her, can she stay in her home, and potentially use lethal force to defend herself from a lethal threat, or does she possess a duty to flee anywhere she might reasonably suspect her husband to be? Was she actually in her home or was her husband squatting in a vacant property because hahah just kidding she was found guilty anyway. Listen, don't do this poo poo. Don't invoke the plight of battered women as a justification for SYG-style laws. It's tasteless and extremely cynical to include a real problem among the many fake ones fantasized about by vigilante survivalist idiots and even worse the law explicitly excludes domestic abuse situations in the state in which they originated (guess).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because I thought we were having a policy discussion about self defense laws not just circle jerking about this guy being an rear end in a top hat. You don't actually think he's an rear end in a top hat but you're too much of a loving coward to just come out and say it so you hide behind this petty legalism and pretend to be talking about something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its actually very unclear in NV as per our debate yesterday, since the owner is obligated to tell them to leave before being able to have law enforcement remove them by force and its unclear whether these people actually qualified as committing criminal trespass or if it was forcible detainer (squatting). Since the prosecution didn't even attempt to raise this issue at trial I'm inclined to think they don't actually have any of the rights you're claiming in this instance. She had been living there for years and had the address on her Nevada driver's license. But it doesn't matter anyway, there are still more reasonable ways to tell trespassers to leave that are hilariously less likely to result in a confrontation than breaking in the door in the middle of the night, brandishing a pistol. This is really the problem I have: you shouldn't act in ways that cause unnecessarily explosive situations and rely on having a gun to get you out of it. Just a hypothetical question, did the squatters have a right to self-defense here, do you think? If that flashlight had been a gun, would Devine have been justified in shooting an angry man who had just broken open the chain lock on the front door and came into the bedroom pointing a pistol at him? He certainly would have reasonably feared for his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But your slippery slope was a bad and wrong argument, because other states do impose a duty to retreat without imposing such a duty on battered wives, so bringing it up was irrelevant. What? "Duty to not go someplace you might be victimized" and "duty to retreat" are not the same thing. This is not just victim blaming, its literally criminalizing victim-hood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What? "Duty to not go someplace you might be victimized" and "duty to retreat" are not the same thing. The victims in this case are the people who got shot you colossal douche bag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The victims in this case are the people who got shot you colossal douche bag. Not according to the way the case was decided, and guess what, laws apply to more then one case!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The victims in this case are the people who got shot you colossal douche bag. I would argue that basically everyone involved was a victim to varying degrees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not according to the way the case was decided, and guess what, laws apply to more then one case! It's actually super adorable that you think no conviction = no victims given the amount of effort you spend pretending to know anything about law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not according to the way the case was decided, and guess what, laws apply to more then one case! What an awful post. The dead dude is a victim. The woman peppered with bullet holes is a victim. The shooter who hallucinated a gun is the victim of his own stupidity. Because a jury thought he was reasonable in seeing a gun that wasn't there he isn't going to jail, but that doesn't mean the person he killed isn't a victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
So here in New York City the Cops and the Media are yet again trying to hype everyone about the return of the "bad old days," today by hyping about how felony assaults on the Subway are up 27%. What you find out when you open the paper and get to the page the story is on it turns out that these crimes are up from something like the low 70s last year to 99 people this year, so less than a hundred people have been attacked on the Subway in the city of 8 million people and we're all suppose to act like it's going to be 1982 all over again cause of our Democrat mayor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:42
|
|
