|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2012 : 05:54:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Retreating person scenarios can be rather widespread.
It is usually not a threat. That's one of those judgement call things. |
And you think that such judgments can and should be made by people in the heat of the moment.
|
This happens every day.
| But if the individual has not demonstrated a perpensity to return to escalate, then there is no threat to deal with. |
Define propensity.
|
If they are leaving after round two, then they are likely to return for round three and up the conflict.
Attacks:
Isn't likely to be pleasant and if they outclass me physically it is likely that they may kill me. |
No, it is not likely. I submit that any calculation of probabilities must rely on the available data, which clearly indicate that most people who commit assault do not intend to commit murder, regardless of their size relative to their victim.
|
So its OK for me to take a beating. Got it. I shouldn't fear for my life because they are only gonna put me in the hospital.
| I intend to resist any attack. Primarily by retreating, but if pursued I may have to defend myself. If I feel my life in danger, I can do so with deadly force. |
I don't have a problem with any of that, despite your incorrect statement about me wanting an unarmed citizenry. I have a problem with nothing more than a "lunge" or a "lean" being declared to be solid justifications for a "good shoot."
|
Only if you take the "lunge"/"lean" out of context with the bulk of the persons behavior.
Carroll:
Didn't get shot while sitting in his truck. |
So what? I asked if sitting in his truck at the end of Heckman's driveway constituted an immediate threat such that throwing a door handle was an appropriate response. You have declined to answer, despite being the one to introduce the term "immediate threat" into this discussion.
|
I had intimated that throwing the doorknob was an understandable action but not the best course of action. Carroll had issued fighting words and his actions were to intimidate.
| Heckman responded in a questionable manner which was the excuse Carroll was waiting for to escalate the confrontation. |
So now you can read Carroll's mind? James Randi has a million bucks for you to claim.
|
Seemed like he was from his prior actions. He was goading Heckman into a confrontation so he could escalate it further.
Modern society:
Yes, violent reactions are appropriate in a modern society. The criminals aren't going to play by those rules. |
Why are you playing stupid, Val?
Is a death sentence for a "lunge" an appropriate reaction? Is lunging at another person now a crime?!
|
Assault. Again, in context with the other actions of the person. Yes, it can be based on the other actions of that person. "Lunges" do not exist in a vaccuum.
Aldrin:
Could not a different explaination be that he was making sure he would not be assaulted from behind? Aldrin popped Sibrel after provocation and made sure that Sibrel was no longer a threat before he moved on. |
No, he didn't "make sure" that the threat was gone, he stood there just looking at the threat. Good grief, Val, Sibrel was in arm's reach of Aldrin.
But it all falls apart, anyway, given the context and the fact that Aldrin's punch was obviously because he was angry, not because he was afraid. Watch the video again. Post the timestamps of when Sibrel was "violent" with his Bible. What got Aldrin worked up was Sibrel insulting him. Sibrel says "you're a coward, and a liar, and [punch starts] a thie[punch lands]f."| Sibrel would not be protected under the stand your ground law as he was running Aldrin down. Aldrin would be. |
No, you're wrong, there. For one thing, Sibrel wasn't "running down" Aldrin with the intention of shooting him. For another, the courts have already decided that it doesn't matter if the shooter provokes the victim into attacking.
"Stand Your Ground" actually protects my right to shout insults at you at a bar all night, and then when you try to punch me when I leave, I get to shoot you dead, legally. That, in my opinion, is one of the worst things about these laws. They should not be protecting bullies with guns, but they do.| "Stand your ground does not mean running someone down and shooting them" - Jeb Bush. |
Google fails to find that quote. What Jeb Bush said was this:"This law does not apply to this particular circumstance... Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back." So yeah, Bush wasn't talking about the law not protecting annoying assholes engaged in ambush interviews. It does protect them, if they decide that the people they're ambushing become a threat to their lives.
|
And Sibrel chased someone who had turned their back. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 05:57:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Dave, I think you are off the mark, exemplified by this:| And you think that such judgments can and should be made by people in the heat of the moment. |
I think it's not that Val wants to make such decisions, but that in real life, they are sometimes forced upon a person. And in such situations, flight, fight, or take-no-action at all are all behaviors with terrible consequences.
I think it's not that Val's claiming to have extraordinary powers to predict a confrontee's actions or to make such a decision with perfect foresight, but rather that we imperfect people are sometimes placed in situations where possible dire consequences mean we are forced to make decisions based upon far too little information. I think Val's just trying to show how he thinks one can try to make the best of almost impossible circumstances. Now Val can correct me, if he likes.
|
Spot on, Mooner. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 07:56:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you think that such judgments can and should be made by people in the heat of the moment. |
This happens every day. |
So because it does happen, it should happen?
What you and Mach and Mooner seem to be missing is that I agree that people should be allowed to defend themselves, but I don't think they shouldn't get to do so with near-absolute immunity from scrutiny. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has specifically created a legal environment where the facts of many of these cases may never come to light. Every time someone winds up dead, the killer ought to expect to explain himself to a judge and jury, even if it was - by some apparently mythical objective standard - a "good shoot." People who choose to take the executioner role upon themselves, even righteously, shouldn't be allowed to also be the arbiters of whether or not the sentence they passed was justified.| If they are leaving after round two, then they are likely to return for round three and up the conflict. |
Upon what empirical data is this assertion of probability based?| So its OK for me to take a beating. Got it. |
Don't be daft. It's not okay for you to take a beating, and it's not okay for you to turn simple assault into a capital crime without oversight.| I shouldn't fear for my life because they are only gonna put me in the hospital. |
If you're just going to ignore what I specifically say, then what's the point of this conversation?| Only if you take the "lunge"/"lean" out of context with the bulk of the persons behavior. |
I don't see where I am doing so. I do, however, see you going out of your way to portray situations as being much more dangerous to the shooters than they were.| I had intimated that throwing the doorknob was an understandable action but not the best course of action. Carroll had issued fighting words and his actions were to intimidate. |
And that still doesn't answer the "immediate threat" question. But here's another one: should intimidation be considered a capital crime?| Seemed like he was from his prior actions. He was goading Heckman into a confrontation so he could escalate it further. |
You're still stating things as if you have insight into Carroll's state of mind, and it was only negative. But with Carroll in his truck and Heckman in his house, there was no "immediate threat" and so everything that came after was the direct result of Heckman choosing to escalate the conflict. Throwing the door handle was only "understandable" if you think Heckman was opting to be the aggressor.
And if I had my druthers, all the "Stand Your Ground" laws would include clauses that state that if you've acted aggressively in what lead up to your use of deadly force, then you will not be immune from any prosecution. Nobody should be allowed to escalate a conflict and then get off when the other guy takes the bait, like Heckman did.Is a lunge (not a tackle, a lunge) an assault?| Again, in context with the other actions of the person. Yes, it can be based on the other actions of that person. "Lunges" do not exist in a vaccuum. |
So where is the detailed account of the lunge upon which you based your "good shoot" assessment?| And Sibrel chased someone who had turned their back. |
Not with the intention to hurt him. You're hypocritically ignoring the context in the Aldrin case while demanding I pay close attention to the context in other cases. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 14:39:14 [Permalink]
|
| I see it like any other potential crime, if police think they have a case, they can make an arrest. I don't believe a shooter should be automatically put into financial harm (legal fees, missed work) associated with being a defendant in a court if there isn't evidence of wrongdoing. By all means, police should take statements from everyone involved, evaluate the scene, etc, but I don't agree prosecution should be the default position. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 16:42:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you think that such judgments can and should be made by people in the heat of the moment. |
This happens every day. |
So because it does happen, it should happen?
What you and Mach and Mooner seem to be missing is that I agree that people should be allowed to defend themselves, but I don't think they shouldn't get to do so with near-absolute immunity from scrutiny. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has specifically created a legal environment where the facts of many of these cases may never come to light. Every time someone winds up dead, the killer ought to expect to explain himself to a judge and jury, even if it was - by some apparently mythical objective standard - a "good shoot." People who choose to take the executioner role upon themselves, even righteously, shouldn't be allowed to also be the arbiters of whether or not the sentence they passed was justified.
|
So the whole thing boils down to, I cannot defend myself with the tools available to me but must wait until a court gives the OK. I don't agree with that assessment. They are not choosing to take on the executioner role. The person being shot put it upon themselves to make the shooter have to make that decision.
And prosecutors make decisions on what cases they will take to court every day. Do we set up a special class that always must go to trial? Why focus it only on guns?
| If they are leaving after round two, then they are likely to return for round three and up the conflict. |
Upon what empirical data is this assertion of probability based?
|
Based on displayed behavior observed.
| So its OK for me to take a beating. Got it. |
Don't be daft. It's not okay for you to take a beating, and it's not okay for you to turn simple assault into a capital crime without oversight.
|
None of these lack oversight. The police come out and investigate. Just crying "stand your ground" is not a get out of prosecution card. Even Zimmerman was taken into custody.
| I shouldn't fear for my life because they are only gonna put me in the hospital. |
If you're just going to ignore what I specifically say, then what's the point of this conversation?| Only if you take the "lunge"/"lean" out of context with the bulk of the persons behavior. |
I don't see where I am doing so. I do, however, see you going out of your way to portray situations as being much more dangerous to the shooters than they were.
|
According to you.
| I had intimated that throwing the doorknob was an understandable action but not the best course of action. Carroll had issued fighting words and his actions were to intimidate. |
And that still doesn't answer the "immediate threat" question. But here's another one: should intimidation be considered a capital crime?
|
In some cases, it is. For instance, threatening the President of the United States.
| Seemed like he was from his prior actions. He was goading Heckman into a confrontation so he could escalate it further. |
You're still stating things as if you have insight into Carroll's state of mind, and it was only negative. But with Carroll in his truck and Heckman in his house, there was no "immediate threat" and so everything that came after was the direct result of Heckman choosing to escalate the conflict. Throwing the door handle was only "understandable" if you think Heckman was opting to be the aggressor.
|
So Carroll trying to intimidate Heckman is a freebie, eh?
And if I had my druthers, all the "Stand Your Ground" laws would include clauses that state that if you've acted aggressively in what lead up to your use of deadly force, then you will not be immune from any prosecution. Nobody should be allowed to escalate a conflict and then get off when the other guy takes the bait, like Heckman did.
|
And these laws don't. They aren't immune from prosecution. Plus, Carroll baited Heckman who did take the bait. Not Heckman.
Is a lunge (not a tackle, a lunge) an assault?
|
Yes, it is an assault. A tackle is battery.
| Again, in context with the other actions of the person. Yes, it can be based on the other actions of that person. "Lunges" do not exist in a vaccuum. |
So where is the detailed account of the lunge upon which you based your "good shoot" assessment?
|
It was in there. You didn't see it.
| And Sibrel chased someone who had turned their back. |
Not with the intention to hurt him. You're hypocritically ignoring the context in the Aldrin case while demanding I pay close attention to the context in other cases.
|
And you ignore the words of witnesses that were supplied to you. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 06:44:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I see it like any other potential crime, if police think they have a case, they can make an arrest. I don't believe a shooter should be automatically put into financial harm (legal fees, missed work) associated with being a defendant in a court if there isn't evidence of wrongdoing. |
The fact that someone is dead doesn't indicate that someone did something wrong?!| By all means, police should take statements from everyone involved, evaluate the scene, etc, but I don't agree prosecution should be the default position. |
The travesty here is that if I were to admit to accidentally killing someone, I'd go to prison. But if I make a mistake in thinking that someone is trying to either kill me or try to inflict "great bodily harm," and I admit to purposefully using deadly force, I go free under the "Stand Your Ground" laws. In both cases, an error of mine led to someone's death, but only one victim gets the justice he deserves. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 08:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
So the whole thing boils down to, I cannot defend myself with the tools available to me but must wait until a court gives the OK. I don't agree with that assessment. |
Neither do I, which is why I didn't say anything like that.| They are not choosing to take on the executioner role. The person being shot put it upon themselves to make the shooter have to make that decision. |
They might be forced to make a decision, but they're never compelled to use deadly force. They can always choose not to. By opting to kill their attacker, they ought to be ready to face some possibly severe consequences. The "Stand Your Ground" laws remove many of those consequences.| And prosecutors make decisions on what cases they will take to court every day. |
Yes, but in the Zimmerman case, the prosecutor's original decision was based on their alleged inability to get a conviction. Should that be the only goal? I don't think so.| Do we set up a special class that always must go to trial? |
When someone has wound up dead, why not?| Why focus it only on guns? |
I'm not. This discussion is about the use of deadly force in self-defense. The fact that that's much easier to do with a gun is only relevant in so far as the examples we've been looking at have all been gun-related. By all means, find someone who has cited "Stand Your Ground" after running an attacker through with a sword, or beaten someone to death with a baseball bat, or strangled his attacker with his bare hands.
Here's an interesting side question: in a "Stand Your Ground" state, can I legally gun down a "Chi Master" who waves his hands at me because he genuinely thinks he's about to inflict great bodily harm on me, even though I know he couldn't even hurt a fly with that nonsense?| If they are leaving after round two, then they are likely to return for round three and up the conflict. |
Upon what empirical data is this assertion of probability based? |
Based on displayed behavior observed. |
No. Where is the data that says that in over 50% of cases examined, someone who attacks twice and then turns to leave will instead turn around and make a third attack? You're the one claiming that it is "likely" to happen that way, I want to know from what real-world observations you have made this assessment.| None of these lack oversight. The police come out and investigate. Just crying "stand your ground" is not a get out of prosecution card. Even Zimmerman was taken into custody. |
Being arrested is not a prosecution. Arrests only require probable cause based on what is often sketchy evidence.Your arguments can be dismissed the same way. Should I do so?| In some cases, it is. For instance, threatening the President of the United States. |
No. Nobody who's gone so far as to attempt to assassinate the President has ever faced the death penalty in court as a consequence. In fact, the only Federal capital crimes which don't require at least one dead body are treason, espionage, kidnapping related to a bank robbery, and attempted murder via mail. Federal law says that attempted assassinations can be penalized by life in prison, not the death penalty. It also says that merely assaulting the President may result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to ten years. There seems to be no law against intimidating the President of the United States.
Or are you trying to compare the actions of random people to that of the Secret Service and other presidential protectors in the course of their duties? What's interesting is that only once in the history of the United States has a failed assassin been killed by law enforcement, and even that was only because the assassins got into a huge gun battle with Secret Service agents. Okay, three times if you want to count Bill Clinton's relatiatory strike against Iraq for the attempted assassination of George H. W. Bush, and if you want to include Osama bin Laden's death as a result of his attempted assassination of Bill Clinton.| So Carroll trying to intimidate Heckman is a freebie, eh? |
No, I'm saying that intimidation shouldn't be considered to be a capital crime. What is it with you? Do you really think that if an aggressor isn't killed, he might as well get away with no penalty at all? Is your world really that black-and-white?| And these laws don't. They aren't immune from prosecution. |
I said, "nearly." Apparently you're unaware that the legal environment that "Stand Your Ground" has created (in Florida, at least) is one in which prosecutors need to think they need to have rock-solid evidence that a shooter is lying about self-defense before they'll even be charged. That turns probable cause and due process on their heads.| Plus, Carroll baited Heckman who did take the bait. Not Heckman. |
So you're not even going to acknowledge the possibility that the men baited each other. Got it.| It was in there. You didn't see it. |
Let's see:Two men meet at a park one Sunday afternoon in September. One is playing basketball with his daughter. The other has a gun tucked in his pants.
The two men argue about a kid who's skateboarding. The man with the gun tries to enforce the rules. The other man lunges.
The unarmed man takes his last breath in front of his 8-year-old daughter. Two days later, authorities charge the gun owner with manslaughter.
...
What, then, was Trevor Dooley's state of mind when he went to a park in Valrico last month with a gun to confront a skateboarder?
Dooley, 69, had a permit for the gun, and no law bars him from taking it to a park.
Authorities say he shot David James dead.
What was James, 41, thinking when he lunged toward Dooley? What was Dooley thinking James was thinking?
Did Dooley "reasonably believe" that the younger, bigger, stronger man would take his gun and harm him?
Only he knows.
And whether he is punished for gunning down a father in front of his daughter in a park on a sunny Sunday afternoon will more than likely come down to what he says he was thinking in those few seconds before a man died. I see no details, only questions about the details.| And you ignore the words of witnesses that were supplied to you. |
No, I do not ignore them, I considered them and dismissed them as irrelevant because you, I, Bart Sibrel and Buzz Aldrin all know that Sibrel posed no physical threat to Aldrin at any time during the confrontation that led to Aldrin punching Sibrel. Getting physical would have weakened Sibrel's cause, and everyone knew this at the time (Sibrel having confronted Aldrin twice before), so any "poking" Sibrel might have done with his Bible was likely unintended, and it clearly wasn't what set Aldrin off, anyway. Once that fist flew, though, Sibrel immediately knew that Aldrin was a physical threat. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 10:50:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I see it like any other potential crime, if police think they have a case, they can make an arrest. I don't believe a shooter should be automatically put into financial harm (legal fees, missed work) associated with being a defendant in a court if there isn't evidence of wrongdoing. |
The fact that someone is dead doesn't indicate that someone did something wrong?! |
Yes, someone most certainly did something wrong, but not necessarily the shooter.
| By all means, police should take statements from everyone involved, evaluate the scene, etc, but I don't agree prosecution should be the default position. |
The travesty here is that if I were to admit to accidentally killing someone, I'd go to prison. But if I make a mistake in thinking that someone is trying to either kill me or try to inflict "great bodily harm," and I admit to purposefully using deadly force, I go free under the "Stand Your Ground" laws. In both cases, an error of mine led to someone's death, but only one victim gets the justice he deserves. |
Unless it's not an accident and actually was justified. I understand moves the burden of proof back to proving the shooter was not making a "reasonable" judgment about their safety as opposed to defense needing to prove it was necessary for self defense.
I realize that any time laws become weaker, you're going to let more guilty people go free. I accept this as a necessary evil in order to offer greater protections to people who actually were right. And in this latter case, where the dead person actually does try to attack the shooter, I don't consider this person a victim at all.
In the same way I'm allowing guilty people fall through the cracks, you're allowing the situation mentioned before, having to allow an attacker attack you and putting your life at risk. I see the latter as worse. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2012 : 10:56:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
So the whole thing boils down to, I cannot defend myself with the tools available to me but must wait until a court gives the OK. I don't agree with that assessment. |
Neither do I, which is why I didn't say anything like that.| They are not choosing to take on the executioner role. The person being shot put it upon themselves to make the shooter have to make that decision. |
They might be forced to make a decision, but they're never compelled to use deadly force. They can always choose not to. By opting to kill their attacker, they ought to be ready to face some possibly severe consequences. The "Stand Your Ground" laws remove many of those consequences.| And prosecutors make decisions on what cases they will take to court every day. |
Yes, but in the Zimmerman case, the prosecutor's original decision was based on their alleged inability to get a conviction. Should that be the only goal? I don't think so.| Do we set up a special class that always must go to trial? |
When someone has wound up dead, why not?
|
Because in some cases it is inappropriate or would you suggest that this also happen in the case of police shootings as well? Prosecution costs money. Prosecutors always go after cases they can win vs ones they can't. It is their perogative.
| Why focus it only on guns? |
I'm not. This discussion is about the use of deadly force in self-defense. The fact that that's much easier to do with a gun is only relevant in so far as the examples we've been looking at have all been gun-related. By all means, find someone who has cited "Stand Your Ground" after running an attacker through with a sword, or beaten someone to death with a baseball bat, or strangled his attacker with his bare hands.
Here's an interesting side question: in a "Stand Your Ground" state, can I legally gun down a "Chi Master" who waves his hands at me because he genuinely thinks he's about to inflict great bodily harm on me, even though I know he couldn't even hurt a fly with that nonsense?| If they are leaving after round two, then they are likely to return for round three and up the conflict. |
Upon what empirical data is this assertion of probability based? |
Based on displayed behavior observed. |
No. Where is the data that says that in over 50% of cases examined, someone who attacks twice and then turns to leave will instead turn around and make a third attack? You're the one claiming that it is "likely" to happen that way, I want to know from what real-world observations you have made this assessment.
|
50% is a pretty good indicator.
| None of these lack oversight. The police come out and investigate. Just crying "stand your ground" is not a get out of prosecution card. Even Zimmerman was taken into custody. |
Being arrested is not a prosecution. Arrests only require probable cause based on what is often sketchy evidence.Your arguments can be dismissed the same way. Should I do so?| In some cases, it is. For instance, threatening the President of the United States. |
No. Nobody who's gone so far as to attempt to assassinate the President has ever faced the death penalty in court as a consequence. In fact, the only Federal capital crimes which don't require at least one dead body are treason, espionage, kidnapping related to a bank robbery, and attempted murder via mail. Federal law says that attempted assassinations can be penalized by life in prison, not the death penalty. It also says that merely assaulting the President may result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to ten years. There seems to be no law against intimidating the President of the United States.
|
Unless it can be qualified as treason.
Or are you trying to compare the actions of random people to that of the Secret Service and other presidential protectors in the course of their duties? What's interesting is that only once in the history of the United States has a failed assassin been killed by law enforcement, and even that was only because the assassins got into a huge gun battle with Secret Service agents. Okay, three times if you want to count Bill Clinton's relatiatory strike against Iraq for the attempted assassination of George H. W. Bush, and if you want to include Osama bin Laden's death as a result of his attempted assassination of Bill Clinton.| So Carroll trying to intimidate Heckman is a freebie, eh? |
No, I'm saying that intimidation shouldn't be considered to be a capital crime. What is it with you? Do you really think that if an aggressor isn't killed, he might as well get away with no penalty at all? Is your world really that black-and-white?| And these laws don't. They aren't immune from prosecution. |
I said, "nearly." Apparently you're unaware that the legal environment that "Stand Your Ground" has created (in Florida, at least) is one in which prosecutors need to think they need to have rock-solid evidence that a shooter is lying about self-defense before they'll even be charged. That turns probable cause and due process on their heads.
|
No, it doesn't. I am fully aware of the effect of stand your ground.
| Plus, Carroll baited Heckman who did take the bait. Not Heckman. |
So you're not even going to acknowledge the possibility that the men baited each other. Got it.| It was in there. You didn't see it. |
Let's see:Two men meet at a park one Sunday afternoon in September. One is playing basketball with his daughter. The other has a gun tucked in his pants.
The two men argue about a kid who's skateboarding. The man with the gun tries to enforce the rules. The other man lunges.
The unarmed man takes his last breath in front of his 8-year-old daughter. Two days later, authorities charge the gun owner with manslaughter.
...
What, then, was Trevor Dooley's state of mind when he went to a park in Valrico last month with a gun to confront a skateboarder?
Dooley, 69, had a permit for the gun, and no law bars him from taking it to a park.
Authorities say he shot David James dead.
What was James, 41, thinking when he lunged toward Dooley? What was Dooley thinking James was thinking?
Did Dooley "reasonably believe" that the younger, bigger, stronger man would take his gun and harm him?
Only he knows.
And whether he is punished for gunning down a father in front of his daughter in a park on a sunny Sunday afternoon will more than likely come down to what he says he was thinking in those few seconds before a man died. I see no details, only questions about the details.
|
So we have shifted to this case in which the man WAS prosecuted.
| And you ignore the words of witnesses that were supplied to you. |
No, I do not ignore them, I considered them and dismissed them as irrelevant because you, I, Bart Sibrel and Buzz Aldrin all know that Sibrel posed no physical threat to Aldrin at any time during the confrontation that led to Aldrin punching Sibrel. Getting physical would have weakened Sibrel's cause, and everyone knew this at the time (Sibrel having confronted Aldrin twice before), so any "poking" Sibrel might have done with his Bible was likely unintended, and it clearly wasn't what set Aldrin off, anyway. Once that fist flew, though, Sibrel immediately knew that Aldrin was a physical threat.
|
Because no one would suspect that a man half the age and twice the weight of an eldery Astronaut would be threatening. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 07:47:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Yes, someone most certainly did something wrong, but not necessarily the shooter. |
But SYG laws make it possible for the shooter to merely say, "the dead guy did something wrong," and effectively shift the burden of proof onto the him (and thus the state). In every other death-penalty case, the burden of proof lies with the executioners.| Unless it's not an accident and actually was justified. |
And that's what he have courts of law for.I understand moves the burden of proof back to proving the shooter was not making a "reasonable" judgment about their safety as opposed to defense needing to prove it was necessary for self defense.
I realize that any time laws become weaker, you're going to let more guilty people go free. I accept this as a necessary evil in order to offer greater protections to people who actually were right. And in this latter case, where the dead person actually does try to attack the shooter, I don't consider this person a victim at all. |
I consider this idea - that death is an appropriate punishment for trying to blacken your eye or even break your jaw - abhorrent. As I pointed out earlier, most people arrested for assault and/or battery are not charged with attempted murder. The odds are that a person who attacks you isn't doing so with the goal of snuffing you out, even if they dramatically state, "I'm going to kill you!"
One of the original supporters of Florida's SYG law is on record decrying the situation as it stands now, saying that the intent of the law was to allow force to be met with an equal amount of force, and not to allow people to gun down the unarmed.| In the same way I'm allowing guilty people fall through the cracks, you're allowing the situation mentioned before, having to allow an attacker attack you and putting your life at risk. I see the latter as worse. |
You put your life at risk merely by leaving your home. Why doesn't this attitude of yours justify shooting everyone you see, since they all present a non-zero risk to your life? Where do you draw the line, and why? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 08:41:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Because in some cases it is inappropriate or would you suggest that this also happen in the case of police shootings as well? |
I was under the impression that officers are already heavily scrutinized when they fire their weapons. Sure, there's a lot of corruption and cops getting away with murder isn't nearly as rare as it should be, but those are different issues.| Prosecution costs money. Prosecutors always go after cases they can win vs ones they can't. It is their perogative. |
I'm saying that it shouldn't be their prerogative. According to the infographic Mooner posted, we're only talking about 300 cases per year across the nation. It's not going to bankrupt any DA's office, and money shouldn't be an issue when an unarmed teenager winds up dead.| 50% is a pretty good indicator. |
It would be, if it were true. Where is your data?| Unless it can be qualified as treason. |
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Can intimidating the President be so construed?Great argument.| So we have shifted to this case... |
Shifted? No, I'm perfectly fine with talking about more than one case at a time.| ...in which the man WAS prosecuted. |
The article we've been referencing had no mention of that. But I see there's been at least one hearing, and lots more details, including the fact that Dooley was violating Florida's gun laws:Arthur, now 15, said he was visiting friends in the Twin Lakes neighborhood. He took his skateboard to the park and asked permission to practice trick moves from James, who was shooting hoops with his daughter. The only others in the park were a couple playing tennis.
But the boy then heard a voice from across the street. It was Dooley, outside his garage, shouting that he should get off the court, that there was a no-skateboarding sign. The boy stopped.
He heard James call out to Dooley, "Show me the sign."
Michael Scott Whitt, practicing tennis serves nearby with his wife, Michelle, stopped to watch.
They testified that Dooley briefly went into his garage, then started across the street with a dark object sticking out of his waistband. They said James threw his hands up and said, "Oh, come on."
Dooley and James argued over letting the boy skate until Dooley lifted his shirt and said, "F--- you," the Whitts testified.
They said Dooley turned and started home, but James caught up with him. "Mr. James said, 'Don't flash a weapon,' something like that," Michelle Whitt testified.
Then, she said, Dooley pulled out the gun and James grabbed his hand. The men struggled, they fell to the ground, and James ended up on his knees as Dooley lay on his side. They still wrestled for the gun.
The gun fired.
"Mr. James looked up at us," Michelle Whitt testified. "He said, 'Call 911. I've been shot.' Then he fell over."
He was shot through the heart. A medical examiner said he probably died within seconds. So, no "lunge" after all. Just talk until Dooley pulled out his illegally displayed handgun. A bad shoot.
No word yet on whether Dooley will stand trial. The hearing was to determine whether the first-degree manslaughter charge he faces should be dismissed under SYG.| Because no one would suspect that a man half the age and twice the weight of an eldery Astronaut would be threatening. |
Again, this ignores the context. Bart Sibrel was not some stranger whose goals were unknown, so the relative sizes and ages of the two men are irrelevant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 11:07:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You put your life at risk merely by leaving your home. Why doesn't this attitude of yours justify shooting everyone you see, since they all present a non-zero risk to your life? Where do you draw the line, and why?
|
I draw the line where someone begins aggression. I can't know if someone wants to only black my eye and rob me, but if that's what they're trying to do, well... they shouldn't. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 14:18:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I draw the line where someone begins aggression. |
So you're okay being killed by sneak attack?| I can't know if someone wants to only black my eye and rob me, but if that's what they're trying to do, well... they shouldn't. |
People shouldn't cut me off on the highway, either (putting my life at risk), but that doesn't mean the appropriate response is to run them off a bridge. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 14:49:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I draw the line where someone begins aggression. |
So you're okay being killed by sneak attack?[\quote] |
I had to have a reasonable fear for my safety. It's not reasonable to fear for my safety without something out of the ordinary occurring (e.g. someone running at me with a knife, cocked fist, or samurai sword).
| I can't know if someone wants to only black my eye and rob me, but if that's what they're trying to do, well... they shouldn't. |
People shouldn't cut me off on the highway, either (putting my life at risk), but that doesn't mean the appropriate response is to run them off a bridge. |
There's no threat to my safety after this has happened, it's already over, and I can drive away. I can't necessarily get away from an attack when standing on the sidewalk. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/07/2012 14:50:30 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 19:32:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I had to have a reasonable fear for my safety. It's not reasonable to fear for my safety without something out of the ordinary occurring (e.g. someone running at me with a knife, cocked fist, or samurai sword). |
Mere safety, or your life? Is there a difference? What is "great bodily harm," anyway?| There's no threat to my safety after this has happened, it's already over, and I can drive away. |
Not necessarily.
One sunny day, I was driving on an empty section of six-lane highway (three lanes each way). I was in the middle lane, traffic ahead of me was at least a quarter-mile away, and traffic behind me was maybe half that. I was doing 60 in a 55 zone, and came up to a curve clearly marked with a maximum safe speed of 50. Having driven this route a zillion times, I kept at 60 anyway.
Halfway around the curve, I notice a guy in a white Mustang convertible (top down) has broken free of the pack way behind me and is coming up fast, also in the middle lane. Near the end of the curve, he dives into the right lane to pass me at at least 70, and then cuts me off as he dives back into the center lane. Then he gave me the finger (wtf?) and stomped on the gas even more.
I think at this point, Val would agree that the guy was both irrational and aggressive towards me, and that it would have been stupid of me to not shoot the guy to ensure that he didn't do me further harm. For all I knew, he was going to be hiding around the next curve - the Capitol Beltway has a lot of sharp turns on it for a super-highway - waiting to ram my little Celica with his massive American-steel beast of a car.
Yeah, both he and his car were bigger and stronger than me and mine. I was probably younger than he was though. These things seem to matter to Val's calculus, at least.| I can't necessarily get away from an attack when standing on the sidewalk. |
You can't necessarily get away from an attack anywhere. Cars aren't built for dodging, and it's always possible you'll blow a tire at just the wrong time. So if necessarily being able to escape is one of your criteria for a shoot/no-shoot decision, it's a bad one to use to differentiate between sidewalks and cars. It's a bad one to use in any situation I can dream up, actually, since there's always a possibility that one will trip, or the engine will seize up, or the trapdoor to the panic room will malfunction, or a strap on the parachute will get caught on the doorframe of the airplane... There's no way to ensure escape from anywhere, ever. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unarmed Trayvon Martin gunned down
