Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • George Zimmerman
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • …
  • 96
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,563 Views)
dreachon Apr 16 2012, 11:57 AM Post #121
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 16 2012, 11:30 AM
dreachon
Apr 16 2012, 10:40 AM
Not saying I agree with NYs gun laws, just pointing out why they exist. Personally, I think Burress doing more time than Vick is ridiculous.
you think that the NY gun laws exist to cut down on stray bullet injuries?
To severely punish those who don't own and use guns responsibly. Having them means that when someone gets hit with a stray bullet, NY has the opportunity to put them away for longer than other states can.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 16 2012, 11:58 AM Post #122
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 16 2012, 11:32 AM
The head of the DHS believes in Stand Your Ground Laws

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/14/janet-napolitano-also-signed-stand-your-ground
I don't have a problem with the law. I just think it should apply to Trayvon Martin and not George Zimmerman.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MsJazen Apr 16 2012, 02:01 PM Post #123
Assistant Coach
Posts:
2,653
Group:
Members
Member
#3
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2012, 10:54 AM
MsJazen
Apr 15 2012, 10:40 AM
I still have a hard time seeing where a teenage boy walking down the street turns into self defense for Zimmerman.
that seems to be a conclusion drawn from emotion as opposed to logic and facts (please don't take that to be an offensive comment, because that is not my intent). Certainly a normal response given the fact that the situation ended in the death of a child, however if Zimmerman's story would turn out to be corroborated, it would pretty easily be labeled self defense.
Not offended at all. :)

I am just saying that there are very few facts that we know to be facts...Trayvon walking around, looking about is what Zimmerman was suspicious of, a fact from his own words in the 911 tape. As far as I know, not much more evidence has been released yet.

Zimmerman's statement cannot be (in my opinion) viewed as facts at this point.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Apr 16 2012, 03:16 PM Post #124
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
MsJazen
Apr 16 2012, 02:01 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2012, 10:54 AM
MsJazen
Apr 15 2012, 10:40 AM
I still have a hard time seeing where a teenage boy walking down the street turns into self defense for Zimmerman.
that seems to be a conclusion drawn from emotion as opposed to logic and facts (please don't take that to be an offensive comment, because that is not my intent). Certainly a normal response given the fact that the situation ended in the death of a child, however if Zimmerman's story would turn out to be corroborated, it would pretty easily be labeled self defense.
Not offended at all. :)

I am just saying that there are very few facts that we know to be facts...Trayvon walking around, looking about is what Zimmerman was suspicious of, a fact from his own words in the 911 tape. As far as I know, not much more evidence has been released yet.

Zimmerman's statement cannot be (in my opinion) viewed as facts at this point.
What would be labeled as "suspicious" changes with every person and every neighborhood
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 16 2012, 03:58 PM Post #125
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 16 2012, 03:16 PM
MsJazen
Apr 16 2012, 02:01 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2012, 10:54 AM
MsJazen
Apr 15 2012, 10:40 AM
I still have a hard time seeing where a teenage boy walking down the street turns into self defense for Zimmerman.
that seems to be a conclusion drawn from emotion as opposed to logic and facts (please don't take that to be an offensive comment, because that is not my intent). Certainly a normal response given the fact that the situation ended in the death of a child, however if Zimmerman's story would turn out to be corroborated, it would pretty easily be labeled self defense.
Not offended at all. :)

I am just saying that there are very few facts that we know to be facts...Trayvon walking around, looking about is what Zimmerman was suspicious of, a fact from his own words in the 911 tape. As far as I know, not much more evidence has been released yet.

Zimmerman's statement cannot be (in my opinion) viewed as facts at this point.
What would be labeled as "suspicious" changes with every person and every neighborhood
If it's a small neighborhood, and you know everyone, seeing someone you don't recognize walking around in the rain could be considered somewhat "suspicious", IMO.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Apr 16 2012, 04:27 PM Post #126
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Apr 16 2012, 03:58 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 16 2012, 03:16 PM
MsJazen
Apr 16 2012, 02:01 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2012, 10:54 AM
MsJazen
Apr 15 2012, 10:40 AM
I still have a hard time seeing where a teenage boy walking down the street turns into self defense for Zimmerman.
that seems to be a conclusion drawn from emotion as opposed to logic and facts (please don't take that to be an offensive comment, because that is not my intent). Certainly a normal response given the fact that the situation ended in the death of a child, however if Zimmerman's story would turn out to be corroborated, it would pretty easily be labeled self defense.
Not offended at all. :)

I am just saying that there are very few facts that we know to be facts...Trayvon walking around, looking about is what Zimmerman was suspicious of, a fact from his own words in the 911 tape. As far as I know, not much more evidence has been released yet.

Zimmerman's statement cannot be (in my opinion) viewed as facts at this point.
What would be labeled as "suspicious" changes with every person and every neighborhood
If it's a small neighborhood, and you know everyone, seeing someone you don't recognize walking around in the rain could be considered somewhat "suspicious", IMO.
fail
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Apr 16 2012, 06:32 PM Post #127
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Apr 16 2012, 04:27 PM
HoosierLars
Apr 16 2012, 03:58 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Apr 16 2012, 03:16 PM
MsJazen
Apr 16 2012, 02:01 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 15 2012, 10:54 AM
MsJazen
Apr 15 2012, 10:40 AM
I still have a hard time seeing where a teenage boy walking down the street turns into self defense for Zimmerman.
that seems to be a conclusion drawn from emotion as opposed to logic and facts (please don't take that to be an offensive comment, because that is not my intent). Certainly a normal response given the fact that the situation ended in the death of a child, however if Zimmerman's story would turn out to be corroborated, it would pretty easily be labeled self defense.
Not offended at all. :)

I am just saying that there are very few facts that we know to be facts...Trayvon walking around, looking about is what Zimmerman was suspicious of, a fact from his own words in the 911 tape. As far as I know, not much more evidence has been released yet.

Zimmerman's statement cannot be (in my opinion) viewed as facts at this point.
What would be labeled as "suspicious" changes with every person and every neighborhood
If it's a small neighborhood, and you know everyone, seeing someone you don't recognize walking around in the rain could be considered somewhat "suspicious", IMO.
fail
Ok, let me be a little more specific. The unknown person is wearing an IU hoody.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 16 2012, 07:08 PM Post #128
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 16 2012, 07:34 AM
brumdog44
Apr 15 2012, 08:42 PM
Here's a question...if Zimmerman's account was true but in the melee the bullet that was fired struck an innocent bystander, would he be guilty of a crime?
no...my guess would be that Martin would be guilty of that crime as well, as he created the need for self-defense which lead to the shooting
First of all, you're assuming that Zimmerman would be not guilty even if his account held true.

Secondly, one can not simply fire their gun at will should they feel in danger. I would ask you to find a list of convictions of people that were charged with the crime of someone else shooting a gun and killing a bystander.

I have found several state laws that deal with negligent discharge of arms.

Here's the Michigan law:

"Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Other states have similar laws....in the case of firing a firearm on public property, even under self defense, I would assume a bullet striking another individual would fall under the area of 'without due caution and circumspection'....the only catch would be if there was a struggle for the weapon or accidental discharge, neither of which has appeared to happen here.



Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 17 2012, 07:21 AM Post #129
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Apr 16 2012, 07:08 PM
Mr Gray
Apr 16 2012, 07:34 AM
brumdog44
Apr 15 2012, 08:42 PM
Here's a question...if Zimmerman's account was true but in the melee the bullet that was fired struck an innocent bystander, would he be guilty of a crime?
no...my guess would be that Martin would be guilty of that crime as well, as he created the need for self-defense which lead to the shooting
First of all, you're assuming that Zimmerman would be not guilty even if his account held true.

Secondly, one can not simply fire their gun at will should they feel in danger. I would ask you to find a list of convictions of people that were charged with the crime of someone else shooting a gun and killing a bystander.

I have found several state laws that deal with negligent discharge of arms.

Here's the Michigan law:

"Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

Other states have similar laws....in the case of firing a firearm on public property, even under self defense, I would assume a bullet striking another individual would fall under the area of 'without due caution and circumspection'....the only catch would be if there was a struggle for the weapon or accidental discharge, neither of which has appeared to happen here.



there is no way in hell that a person would be charged with reckless use of a firearm if they fired in a proven and legitimate self defense situation and struck another person.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Apr 17 2012, 08:15 AM Post #130
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:21 AM
there is no way in hell that a person would be charged with reckless use of a firearm if they fired in a proven and legitimate self defense situation and struck another person.

See 8.07 below.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim08.htm




Chapter 8



SELF-DEFENSE


§ 8.01 Use of Non-deadly force



a. Common Law – A non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. However, the use of force must not be excessive in relation to the harm threatened. One is never permitted to use deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack.



b. Model Penal Code – A person is justified in using force upon another person if he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other on the present occasion. [MPC § 3.04(1)] In a departure from common law principles but in accord with the modern trend, a person may not use force to resist an arrest that he knows is being made by a police officer, even if the arrest is unlawful (e.g., without probable cause). [MPC § 3.04(2)(a)(i)] However, this rule does not prohibit use of force by an arrestee who believes that the officer intends to use excessive force in effectuating the arrest.



The provision does not specifically require the defendant’s belief to be reasonable. However, nearly all of the Code justification defenses, including the defense of self-protection, are modified by § 3.09, which re-incorporates a reasonableness component.



§ 8.02 Use of Deadly force



a. Common Law – Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the defendant reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. Deadly force may not be used to combat an imminent deadly assault if a non-deadly response will apparently suffice.



b. Model Penal Code – The Code specifically sets forth the situations in which deadly force is justifiable: when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against:



1.) death;
2.) serious bodily injury;
3.) forcible rape; or
4.) kidnapping.



The Code prohibits the use of deadly force by a deadly aggressor, i.e., one who, "with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter." [MPC § 3.04(2)(b)(i)]



§ 8.03 Retreat Rule



a. Common Law – If a person can safely retreat and, therefore, avoid killing the aggressor, deadly force is unnecessary. Nonetheless, jurisdictions are sharply split on the issue of retreat. A slim majority of jurisdictions permit a non-aggressor to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack, even if he is aware of a place to which he can retreat in complete safety. Many jurisdictions, however, provide that a non-aggressor who is threatened by deadly force must retreat rather than use deadly force, if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety.



A universally recognized exception to the rule of retreat is that a non-aggressor need not ordinarily retreat if he is attacked in his own dwelling place or within its curtilage [the immediately surrounding land associated with the dwelling], even though he could do so in complete safety.



b. Model Penal Code – One may not use deadly force against an aggressor if he knows that he can avoid doing so with complete safety by retreating. Retreat is not generally required in one’s home or place of work. However, retreat from the home or office is required: (1) if the defendant was the initial aggressor, and wishes to regain his right of self-protection; or (2) even if he was not the aggressor, if he is attacked by a co-worker in their place of work. However, the Code does not require retreat by a non-aggressor in the home, even if the assailant is a co-dweller.



§ 8.04 "Reasonable Belief"



The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.



Courts are increasingly applying a standard of the "reasonable person in the defendant’s situation" in lieu of the "reasonable person" standard. Factors that may be relevant to the defendant’s situation or circumstances include:



1.) the physical movements of the potential assailant;
2.) any relevant knowledge the defendant has about that person;
3.) the physical attributes of all persons involved, including the defendant;
4.) any prior experiences which could provide a reasonable basis for the belief that the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances.



§ 8.05 "Imperfect" Self-Defense Claims



a. Common Law – The traditional common law rule is that if any element necessary to prove self-defense is lacking, the defense is wholly unavailable to a defendant. Some states now recognize a so-called "imperfect" or "incomplete" defense of self-defense to murder, which results in conviction for the lesser offense of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. For example, a defendant who fails to satisfy the "reasonableness" component, although his belief was genuine, might be able to assert an "imperfect" or "incomplete" claim of self-defense, mitigating his crime to manslaughter.



b. Model Penal Code – The Model Penal Code likewise recognizes an imperfect defense where the defendant asserts a justification defense, evaluated in terms of the defendant’s subjective belief in the necessity of using the force or other material circumstances. However, justification defenses are subject to section 3.09(2), which provides that when the defendant is reckless or negligent in regard to the facts relating to the justifiability of his conduct, the justification defense is unavailable to him in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability.



§ 8.06 Battered Woman Syndrome



A special type of self-defense is the "battered woman syndrome" defense. Cases in which this defense arise may occur under three scenarios:



(1) "Confrontational" homicides, i.e., cases in which the battered woman kills her partner during a battering incident. In such cases, an instruction on self-defense is almost always given. It is now routine for a court to permit a battered woman to introduce evidence of the decedent’s prior abusive treatment of her, in support of her claim of self-defense.



(2) "Non-confrontational" homicide, where the battered woman kills her abuser while he is asleep or during a significant lull in the violence. Courts are divided on whether self-defense may be claimed if there is no evidence of threatening conduct by the abuser at the time of the homicide, although the majority position is that homicide under such circumstances is unjustified.



(3) Third-party hired-killer cases, in which the battered woman hires or importunes another to kill her husband, and then pleads self-defense. Courts have unanimously refused to permit instructions in third-party hired-killer cases.



§ 8.07 Risk to Innocent Bystanders



a. Common Law – Courts apply a transferred-justification doctrine, similar to the transferred-intent rule: a defendant’s right of self-defense "transfers" (just as intent to kill does) from the intended to the actual victim. While the defense is absolute in some jurisdictions, other courts do not treat this rule as absolute. If the defendant, acting justifiably in self-defense against an aggressor, fires a weapon "wildly or carelessly," thereby jeopardizing the safety of known bystanders, some courts hold the defendant guilty of manslaughter (or of reckless endangerment if no bystander is killed), but not of intentional homicide.



b. Model Penal Code – If a person justifiably uses force against an aggressor, but uses such force in a reckless or negligent manner in regard to the safety of an innocent bystander, the justification defense, which is available to the person in regard to the aggressor, is unavailable to him in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence as to the bystander.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 17 2012, 08:24 AM Post #131
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Apr 17 2012, 08:15 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 07:21 AM
there is no way in hell that a person would be charged with reckless use of a firearm if they fired in a proven and legitimate self defense situation and struck another person.

See 8.07 below.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim08.htm




Chapter 8



SELF-DEFENSE


§ 8.01 Use of Non-deadly force



a. Common Law – A non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. However, the use of force must not be excessive in relation to the harm threatened. One is never permitted to use deadly force to repel a non-deadly attack.



b. Model Penal Code – A person is justified in using force upon another person if he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other on the present occasion. [MPC § 3.04(1)] In a departure from common law principles but in accord with the modern trend, a person may not use force to resist an arrest that he knows is being made by a police officer, even if the arrest is unlawful (e.g., without probable cause). [MPC § 3.04(2)(a)(i)] However, this rule does not prohibit use of force by an arrestee who believes that the officer intends to use excessive force in effectuating the arrest.



The provision does not specifically require the defendant’s belief to be reasonable. However, nearly all of the Code justification defenses, including the defense of self-protection, are modified by § 3.09, which re-incorporates a reasonableness component.



§ 8.02 Use of Deadly force



a. Common Law – Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the defendant reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. Deadly force may not be used to combat an imminent deadly assault if a non-deadly response will apparently suffice.



b. Model Penal Code – The Code specifically sets forth the situations in which deadly force is justifiable: when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against:



1.) death;
2.) serious bodily injury;
3.) forcible rape; or
4.) kidnapping.



The Code prohibits the use of deadly force by a deadly aggressor, i.e., one who, "with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter." [MPC § 3.04(2)(b)(i)]



§ 8.03 Retreat Rule



a. Common Law – If a person can safely retreat and, therefore, avoid killing the aggressor, deadly force is unnecessary. Nonetheless, jurisdictions are sharply split on the issue of retreat. A slim majority of jurisdictions permit a non-aggressor to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack, even if he is aware of a place to which he can retreat in complete safety. Many jurisdictions, however, provide that a non-aggressor who is threatened by deadly force must retreat rather than use deadly force, if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety.



A universally recognized exception to the rule of retreat is that a non-aggressor need not ordinarily retreat if he is attacked in his own dwelling place or within its curtilage [the immediately surrounding land associated with the dwelling], even though he could do so in complete safety.



b. Model Penal Code – One may not use deadly force against an aggressor if he knows that he can avoid doing so with complete safety by retreating. Retreat is not generally required in one’s home or place of work. However, retreat from the home or office is required: (1) if the defendant was the initial aggressor, and wishes to regain his right of self-protection; or (2) even if he was not the aggressor, if he is attacked by a co-worker in their place of work. However, the Code does not require retreat by a non-aggressor in the home, even if the assailant is a co-dweller.



§ 8.04 "Reasonable Belief"



The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.



Courts are increasingly applying a standard of the "reasonable person in the defendant’s situation" in lieu of the "reasonable person" standard. Factors that may be relevant to the defendant’s situation or circumstances include:



1.) the physical movements of the potential assailant;
2.) any relevant knowledge the defendant has about that person;
3.) the physical attributes of all persons involved, including the defendant;
4.) any prior experiences which could provide a reasonable basis for the belief that the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances.



§ 8.05 "Imperfect" Self-Defense Claims



a. Common Law – The traditional common law rule is that if any element necessary to prove self-defense is lacking, the defense is wholly unavailable to a defendant. Some states now recognize a so-called "imperfect" or "incomplete" defense of self-defense to murder, which results in conviction for the lesser offense of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. For example, a defendant who fails to satisfy the "reasonableness" component, although his belief was genuine, might be able to assert an "imperfect" or "incomplete" claim of self-defense, mitigating his crime to manslaughter.



b. Model Penal Code – The Model Penal Code likewise recognizes an imperfect defense where the defendant asserts a justification defense, evaluated in terms of the defendant’s subjective belief in the necessity of using the force or other material circumstances. However, justification defenses are subject to section 3.09(2), which provides that when the defendant is reckless or negligent in regard to the facts relating to the justifiability of his conduct, the justification defense is unavailable to him in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability.



§ 8.06 Battered Woman Syndrome



A special type of self-defense is the "battered woman syndrome" defense. Cases in which this defense arise may occur under three scenarios:



(1) "Confrontational" homicides, i.e., cases in which the battered woman kills her partner during a battering incident. In such cases, an instruction on self-defense is almost always given. It is now routine for a court to permit a battered woman to introduce evidence of the decedent’s prior abusive treatment of her, in support of her claim of self-defense.



(2) "Non-confrontational" homicide, where the battered woman kills her abuser while he is asleep or during a significant lull in the violence. Courts are divided on whether self-defense may be claimed if there is no evidence of threatening conduct by the abuser at the time of the homicide, although the majority position is that homicide under such circumstances is unjustified.



(3) Third-party hired-killer cases, in which the battered woman hires or importunes another to kill her husband, and then pleads self-defense. Courts have unanimously refused to permit instructions in third-party hired-killer cases.



§ 8.07 Risk to Innocent Bystanders



a. Common Law – Courts apply a transferred-justification doctrine, similar to the transferred-intent rule: a defendant’s right of self-defense "transfers" (just as intent to kill does) from the intended to the actual victim. While the defense is absolute in some jurisdictions, other courts do not treat this rule as absolute. If the defendant, acting justifiably in self-defense against an aggressor, fires a weapon "wildly or carelessly," thereby jeopardizing the safety of known bystanders, some courts hold the defendant guilty of manslaughter (or of reckless endangerment if no bystander is killed), but not of intentional homicide.



b. Model Penal Code – If a person justifiably uses force against an aggressor, but uses such force in a reckless or negligent manner in regard to the safety of an innocent bystander, the justification defense, which is available to the person in regard to the aggressor, is unavailable to him in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence as to the bystander.
of course that is in the law....great use of copy & paste. Notice the use of the word "some courts" in that section....you know as well as I do that if a person was defending themselves against grave danger and a bystander was injured, there isn't a court that would go near that charge.....although I suspect that you will disagree simply because the statement came from me
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Apr 17 2012, 08:34 AM Post #132
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 08:24 AM
of course that is in the law....great use of copy & paste. Notice the use of the word "some courts" in that section....you know as well as I do that if a person was defending themselves against grave danger and a bystander was injured, there isn't a court that would go near that charge.....although I suspect that you will disagree simply because the statement came from me
Wow you have a myopic view when guns are involved.


Of course courts will get involved. There are many many many courts in the US. The make many many many different interpretations of the same laws, hence the appeals process we have. If you believe for a second there is not a court somewhere in the US that hasn't already 'gone near this' you might want to rethink that. It’s what courts do, try to decide legal right from legal wrong.
You want very badly to make all the bits of evidence in these types of cases known, but they never are. They are like the Trayvon Martin case where the truth of what happened is murky. The court will not know at the beginning that it was definitely a cut and dried case of self defense with an accidental death thrown in for good measure. That may be the verdict when it is all said and done, but verdicts are not known until the end.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Apr 17 2012, 11:24 AM Post #133
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Apr 17 2012, 08:34 AM
Mr Gray
Apr 17 2012, 08:24 AM
of course that is in the law....great use of copy & paste. Notice the use of the word "some courts" in that section....you know as well as I do that if a person was defending themselves against grave danger and a bystander was injured, there isn't a court that would go near that charge.....although I suspect that you will disagree simply because the statement came from me
Wow you have a myopic view when guns are involved.


Of course courts will get involved. There are many many many courts in the US. The make many many many different interpretations of the same laws, hence the appeals process we have. If you believe for a second there is not a court somewhere in the US that hasn't already 'gone near this' you might want to rethink that. It’s what courts do, try to decide legal right from legal wrong.
You want very badly to make all the bits of evidence in these types of cases known, but they never are. They are like the Trayvon Martin case where the truth of what happened is murky. The court will not know at the beginning that it was definitely a cut and dried case of self defense with an accidental death thrown in for good measure. That may be the verdict when it is all said and done, but verdicts are not known until the end.
you must not have read my original comment that closely

Quote:
 
if they fired in a proven and legitimate self defense situation


"proven and legitimate"....I'm not talking about cases where it isn't clear that the person was actually acting in self defense.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Apr 17 2012, 12:42 PM Post #134
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
?
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Apr 17 2012, 03:43 PM Post #135
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
eelbor
Apr 17 2012, 12:42 PM
?
Self defense does not give you the carte blanche right to fire at will. Self defense of oneself does not give one the right to endanger innocent people. You can not fire in a negligent, reckless manner.

I assume you have by now heard Gingrich's speech where he says that gun ownership is not a right given by the government, but rather is a "God given right." He also stated that it was his goal to bring this "human right" to every nation. Do you agree with this?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • …
  • 96

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:56 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy