Mr. headbone on 22/3/2012 at 00:21
NICE LOL LOL
demagogue on 22/3/2012 at 01:11
I can't imagine the affirmative defense flying at all in this case. They've been playing the neighbor's 911 call on the news, and you can clearly hear the kid crying & begging for his life in the background then the gun shots that take him down. It's cold. I can't imagine a jury that could listen to that and not throw the book at him.
Shug on 22/3/2012 at 02:56
I don't know how this is about "stand your ground" self defence laws when the guy clearly pursued and shot an unarmed man.
Those laws sound foolish in the extreme; I just don't see how it's related to this particular event.
Muzman on 22/3/2012 at 02:57
The weird part is, given all the things that make this a slam dunk even with 'stand your ground' in place, why the total retreat by the cops? It's like after a certain point they didn't want to know. Detectives taking statements are said to have made remarks on how self defense isn't going to work here. Upstairs must have nixed it, in that case.
Koki on 22/3/2012 at 06:16
Quote Posted by dethtoll
And Koki, you're retarded. just sayin'
In a world where words can hurt like bullets everyone close carries
bang
demagogue on 22/3/2012 at 15:58
From what I remember from criminal law... First all these self defense provisions always have proportionality requirements, which means the defendant used force proportionate to the threat against him. That means there had to be legit grounds for the guy to think deadly force was about to be used on him. I have to think that's the nail in the coffin for this guy's defense.
The other thing it often has is a requirement that you have to make an effort to retreat to safety and fail before you can use force (unless it's like literally inside your house). What I think the "stand your ground" law is, IIRC, is an exception to that so you don't have to literally retreat when faced with deadly force. States like Montana do that. I never particularly liked it because exactly this kind of thing happens.
The only thing that could really fuck things up is if you get a hick jury and the defense lawyer race baits them, but even that's a long shot. There was a case in NYC where a guy was held up on the subway by two black kids, one pulled out a screwdriver and said give us your money, and the guy pulled out a gun and cracked and just went on a shooting spree gunning both of them down, and apparently running after one of them through a few cars as he ran away, and I think shooting each one at least 3 or 4 times. Clearly disproportionate, so I don't think the defense was legally available, but the jury sympathized with the guy so much they acquitted him anyway, which we call jury nullification. Messed up. But the case here isn't even like that. This kid was walking back from a convenience store and had candy in his pocket. The lawyer can try to bait the jury, but there's just nothing to hang it on really (aside from it being a despicable type of argument anyway). Unless some other facts come out, I think this is so open & shut it may just get settled and not even go to trial.
Sombras on 22/3/2012 at 20:14
Quote Posted by demagogue
Unless some other facts come out, I think this is so open & shut it may just get settled and not even go to trial.
Can't you only "settle" a civil suit in the U.S.? (Fuckitall, I wish I hadn't missed that particular episode of
Rockford Files.)
demagogue on 22/3/2012 at 20:17
Yeah, I meant plea bargain, which is a lot like how settlements work anyway. Obviously I'm more on the civil side of the law so it was a slip.
Nicker on 22/3/2012 at 23:07
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17479308) Another Development.
Perhaps rather than requiring that charges be brought in order to investigate cases where a person uses force in their own defence, there should be a presumption that a crime may have been committed, so there can be less prejudicial treatment of incidents by police and no excuse to not investigate any of them.
