|
VitalSigns posted: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. I would think that trespassing as a crime is likely sufficient to be considered legal "provocation," thus preempting the justification of self defense. i.e. I can't break into your house at night, wait for you to get home, and then shoot you when you come home because you scared me.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:What? "Duty to not go someplace you might be victimized" and "duty to retreat" are not the same thing. "A place you might be victimized" is not reasonably foreseeable, you can be victimized anywhere. The duty to retreat involves foreseeable violent confrontations, like busting open the door to an occupied building in the middle of the night, surprising and frightening whoever is inside and pointing a pistol at them. How do you not get the difference? "Don't go to that frat party" is not the same as "don't hunt down people who have converted your property and startle them in their sleep in the middle of the night"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:i.e. I can't break into your house at night, wait for you to get home, and then shoot you when you come home because you scared me. This is exactly what the shooter told his neighbors he would do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
DARPA posted: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. Jesus loving Christ, the finding of the trial was that he reasonably believed he was under attack, it doesn't loving matter if it was real, if you want to criminalize people putting themselves in positions where they can foresee being attacked it will apply equally to people who are actual victims in fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Woozy posted:This is exactly what the shooter told his neighbors he would do. I read the story as the other way around: the trespassers were sleeping when he came in and shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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. Interesting since the guys lawyer disagrees that the case was about a jury deciding this was reasonable self defense. "We'd just like to say thank you to the jury for finally seeing what this case was about, which is justified self-defense," Ristenpart said. "He did what he had to do to protect his own life." You can pretend that the notion of proactive self defense had nothing to do with the verdict but Burgarello specifically invoked it as his defense for his actions. There was no doubt that he killed one person and wounded another, that narrative was not up for debate. The case hinged on if Devine caused him to fear for his life by raising his arm which the jury agreed with but other people think is a ridiculously dangerous precedent where you can kill someone based on your own irrational fear and face no penalty. Exactly what narrative couldn't the prosecution prove if it's not about self defense? Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"A place you might be victimized" is not reasonably foreseeable, you can be victimized anywhere. The duty to retreat involves foreseeable violent confrontations, like busting open the door to an occupied building in the middle of the night, surprising and frightening whoever is inside and pointing a pistol at them. Great, so now if the consequences of walking down that alley alone at night dressed like that are reasonably foreseeable its not only your fault, but actually criminal!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I would think that trespassing as a crime is likely sufficient to be considered legal "provocation," thus preempting the justification of self defense. It wasn't his home though, commercial or rental property is treated differently from a primary residence where a break-in necessarily puts you and your family at risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I read the story as the other way around: the trespassers were sleeping when he came in and shot. "Two neighbors testified Burgarello told them years ago he might arm himself and wait for people responsible for repeated break-ins." http://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article22585797.html#storylink=cpy
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Radish posted:Interesting since the guys lawyer disagrees that the case was about a jury deciding this was reasonable self defense. What? I'm talking about the narrative about how the events played out, what the prosecution claimed and what the defense claimed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Great, so now if the consequences of walking down that alley alone at night dressed like that are reasonably foreseeable its not only your fault, but actually criminal! No, why are you reading the opposite of what I said. Read it again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
I think everyone is glossing over the fact that these people were trespassing on his property. The snarky internet response is "outragethatdoesntgivehimarighttoKILLTHEM" but the reality(and rightfully so) is that there is a different legal standard of 'self defense as a justification for homicide' for the criminal than there is for the homeowner. Having the same standard for each would be ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Great, so now if the consequences of walking down that alley alone at night dressed like that are reasonably foreseeable its not only your fault, but actually criminal! Do you watch or read Batman and not understand why he's hunted by the police?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It wasn't his home though, commercial or rental property is treated differently from a primary residence where a break-in necessarily puts you and your family at risk. Not when it comes to the commission of a crime precluding a self-defense claim VitalSigns posted:No, why are you reading the opposite of what I said. Read it again. I realize its not what you said, because you seem to be unable analyze the second order effects of the legal concept you're advocating, it is none the less the implication of what you said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It wasn't his home though, commercial or rental property is treated differently from a primary residence where a break-in necessarily puts you and your family at risk. Woozy posted:"Two neighbors testified Burgarello told them years ago he might arm himself and wait for people responsible for repeated break-ins." "i.e. I can't break into [someone else's] house at night" - It was his property, not theirs. It matters that it was his property and not theirs, and it matters that they were trespassing. It doesn't matter if it was his primary residence or his summer home or his storage locker. Why is this so much trouble for everyone? It doesn't even seem that relevant to the discussion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I realize its not what you said, because you seem to be unable analyze the second order effects of the legal concept you're advocating, it is none the less the implication of what you said. The duty to retreat actually exists in states that aren't Nevada, maybe you could show me some case law where it was used to rule a woman was responsible for her own rape?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:She had been living there for years and had the address on her Nevada driver's license. And who cares about what is on her driver's license? It's trivial, you can literally change the address online to whatever you want http://www.dmvnv.com/addchange.htm VitalSigns posted: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. Seriously though it's possible but unlikely. Once they were on notice that they were in the wrong by trespassing/breaking and entering (which would be immediately for most reasonable people, although Wilson claimed Devine (somehow) didn't know they were trespassing) probably not. Even if it wasn't the owner's home he had more right to be there than they did. If I startle someone who has broken into my store and they kill me I'm pretty sure their claim of self defense won't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The duty to retreat actually exists in states that aren't Nevada, maybe you could show me some case law where it was used to rule a woman was responsible for her own rape? What you're describing is not a duty to retreat. Him entering the house has no bearing on a duty to retreat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"i.e. I can't break into [someone else's] house at night" - It was his property, not theirs. If I am breaking into someone's storage locker, do I have the right of self-defense, or am I a free good for anyone who wants to claim my pelt? Under what circumstances does someone committing a property crime not have a right to self-defense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What? I'm talking about the narrative about how the events played out, what the prosecution claimed and what the defense claimed. How are what they claimed about the facts and events different? Both sides agreed that the two squatters were on his property and shouldn't have been there, were unarmed, and that he shot at them eight times. The defense claimed that Devine lifting his arm constituted an aggressive action which gave Burgarello the reasonable fear allowing him to fire at both of them to protect himself. As far as I know the prosecution did not make the case that the two didn't move at all. It came down to if you believed that Burgarello had a legitimate fear for his life based on the situation he created which the jury agreed with. What people are concerned with is that Burgarello went out of his way to make a scenario where he could reasonably construe ANY action on the part of the unarmed squatters as "aggressive" and respond with lethal force. If you can't tell the difference between that and simply walking home at night and getting mugged then there's really nothing to argue since there's a fundamental disagreement in terms of what constitutes self defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:If you're going to be a stickler on facts you should be more accurate: she claimed to have been living there off-and-on for three years. No one in the neighborhood noticed someone was living there until her friend parked a car out front. If she didn't own a car, it's hardly surprising that no one noticed a car parked there until she met a guy with a car and brought her home. And the homeowner had been aware of trespassers for years right, isn't that why he made the comment about waiting in there with a gun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
The result of this case is about more then anything the jury giving more credibility (and the benefit of the doubt) to the story of the property owner then to the junkie that was illegally holed up on his property doing meth, not any issue of legal policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"i.e. I can't break into [someone else's] house at night" - It was his property, not theirs. It would matter if he attempted to evict them through conventional legal channels but that was not the decision he made. Look at this way: if he had calmly walked through the door, gently nudged them awake, and then proceeded to walk them out of the property at gunpoint, he would still be doing some incredibly illegal poo poo. The fact that he murdered them instead is the only reason he isn't in prison and if you don't think that's at least "weird" then you're loving mental.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
KomradeX posted: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. I think the most infuriating thing is that there is almost no counter narrative to this. It's weird that so many people consider NYC to be a liberal town when the first Democratic mayor in a while has been nothing but vilified in the media from the the moment he took office (and mostly because he dared question police behavior.) And a ton of people I know for a fact are Democrats do nothing but share and help propagate these stories and opinions. Seriously, I have heard "worst mayor ever" from as many democrats as republicans at this point. But then again, the NY Post remains extremely popular here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The result of this case is about more then anything the jury giving more credibility (and the benefit of the doubt) to the story of the property owner then to the junkie that was illegally holed up on his property doing meth, not any issue of legal policy. What's it like living in a just world? It must be a lot better than this hellhole I'm in where sometimes people are wrongfully convicted, and sometimes the guilty go free. You are correct that the jury believed him because he only killed and wounded junkies, who society gives no value to their lives. I don't think that's a good feature of society though, I think that's a bug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The result of this case is about more then anything the jury giving more credibility (and the benefit of the doubt) to the story of the property owner then to the junkie that was illegally holed up on his property doing meth, not any issue of legal policy. We could save a lot of time and money if we just looked over people's balance sheets instead of this whole court thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If she didn't own a car, it's hardly surprising that no one noticed a car parked there until she met a guy with a car and brought her home. VitalSigns posted:And the homeowner had been aware of trespassers for years right, isn't that why he made the comment about waiting in there with a gun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The result of this case is about more then anything the jury giving more credibility (and the benefit of the doubt) to the story of the property owner then to the junkie that was illegally holed up on his property doing meth, not any issue of legal policy. How is this anything except a scathing critique of our system where juries apparently don't rule on law but on which side is more "credible" (also known as most like them)? What is the major difference between the stories of the prosecution and defense since they seem to agree on all the facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I think the most infuriating thing is that there is almost no counter narrative to this. It's weird that so many people consider NYC to be a liberal town when the first Democratic mayor in a while has been nothing but vilified in the media from the the moment he took office (and mostly because he dared question police behavior.) And a ton of people I know for a fact are Democrats do nothing but share and help propagate these stories and opinions. Seriously, I have heard "worst mayor ever" from as many democrats as republicans at this point. But then again, the NY Post remains extremely popular here. Conversatives? In the seat of America's economic empire? My goodness it's a miracle they haven't been attacked by terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:That's my point. It is likely she wasn't in continuous, open/notorious possession of the property for three years. People in the neighborhood were paying attention and notified Burgarello when it became obvious someone might be inside the property. He responded fairly quickly too. "Snapped", you could even say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Tell you guys what, let's end this pointless loving debate because you have a group of people who are honest to God doing their damnedest to avoid a discussion that while what he did was legal, it sure as gently caress wasn't moral in any sense of the word, and that perhaps the law shouldn't excuse a completely avoidable confrontation in the name of self defense and property rights. Instead let's focus on the thread topic, and use this as a good example of police abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Tell you guys what, let's end this pointless loving debate because you have a group of people who are honest to God doing their damnedest to avoid a discussion that while what he did was legal, it sure as gently caress wasn't moral in any sense of the word, and that perhaps the law shouldn't excuse a completely avoidable confrontation in the name of self defense and property rights. There's a pretty good argument to make that America is a dystopia by this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:How is this anything except a scathing critique of our system where juries apparently don't rule on law but on which side is more "credible" (also known as most like them)? What is the major difference between the stories of the prosecution and defense since they seem to agree on all the facts. Being strung out on meth when you witness something justifiably impinges on your testimony, especially when you get repeatedly caught telling lies during your testimony. It doesn't help that the prosecution's other key witness admitted to making false statements to police regarding Burgarello's level of hostility nor match up with the survivor's testimony. There was difference in narratives between the two sides involving his state of mind before entering the apartment, the details of the manner in which he did so, whether Devine was on drugs at the time, and Burgarello's visual impairment to name a few. edit: Also juries don't rule on law, they rule on facts, credibility goes to the heart of what they do, especially when the case comes down largely to testimonial evidence. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Instead let's focus on the thread topic, and use this as a good example of police abuse. quote:At one point in the raid, Zorich alleges, an officer pointed his firearm at her son's head and said "One word, motherfucker, and I'll put three in you." Zorich was taken into custody and later given a notice of violation from the Housing Inspector. It listed citations concerning her siding, guard rail, screens, window glass and deck.  What in the everloving gently caress is wrong with these people? They kick in a door and threaten to execute people over code violations? Literally no one at any stage of the operation thought "hmmm maybe this is a little excessive?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Was she actually in her home or was her husband squatting in a vacant property because 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 18:32
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:
It sounds very much like these folks probably acted like dicks toward the cops so someone decided to abuse their authority to teach them a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Read the post I quoted. Seriously just read it: The legal protection you're talking about is explicitly excluded from SYG laws and in practice has been denied to the exact victims you're describing which is why what you're doing here is extremely weaselly and lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It sounds very much like these folks probably acted like dicks toward the cops so someone decided to abuse their authority to teach them a lesson. Holy poo poo you're defending this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The legal protection you're talking about is explicitly excluded from SYG laws and in practice has been denied to the exact victims you're describing which is why what you're doing here is extremely weaselly and lovely. edit: oohhboy posted:Holy poo poo you're defending this? twodot fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Devor posted:What's it like living in a just world? It must be a lot better than this hellhole I'm in where sometimes people are wrongfully convicted, and sometimes the guilty go free. Would you prefer more wrongful convictions or more guilty going free?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 18:43
|
|
