Muzman on 23/3/2012 at 05:40
Quote Posted by Sg3
It's happened here in the U.S.A., and people have been seriously hurt or killed as a result. As I said, legal gun owners are often afraid to defend themselves because self-defense is viewed by most people as a crime.
You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid. Sounding like Koki's question a bit but, how would anyone assess a murder victim's reluctance to fire on an attacker as being through of fear of prosecution?
Believe it or not, you're not supposed to feel fine with shooting people and most people don't. Even those you are allowed to or have to. I hope no amount of legislation changes that.
re earlier
Quote:
This is only sane. But some here are suggesting, rather, that the defender be assumed to be a criminal. This makes self-defense even more difficult. People are already being hurt or killed because they're afraid to defend themselves, for fear of being prosecuted.
Not a criminal, but at least culpable. What's usually not in question at that point is someone is dead and it's your fault. Killing people is supposed to be bad, remember.
Anyway, this is a tangent as you say. I don't know what you're worried about. Florida could lose this Stand your Ground malarkey entirely and your self defense thing would be largely untouched.
Muzman on 23/3/2012 at 05:53
Me again,
Quote Posted by demagogue
Apples & oranges. In a *trial*, self-defense is most definitely an affirmative defense. It is *the* classic affirmative defense. Prosecution has the initial burden to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then burden shifts to defense to prove affirmative defense that it was justified by self-defense (but I believe the standard of proof is lower, clear & convincing evidence?)
etc
Yeah it is, but they're citing all of this as reason not to pursue the case in the first place, particularly the part about being sued if they're found to have arrested someone without cause. A stand your ground statement and you walk from the scene without a police witness to contradict you.
Technically the law might spread the burden evenly, but the police or public prosecutor or whoever is pulling the plug on these cases no longer feels that way thanks to precedent in Florida at the moment. I mean, most of us feel everything that has been turned up makes this a slam dunk, even with stand your ground in place. They (police) didn't even get that far down the road supposedly because the stated defense is that strong at present, the burden on them too high without an officer witnessing or under threat.
Debatable perhaps but that appears to be the calculus.
SubJeff on 23/3/2012 at 10:02
This was on the bbc news today. I guess things are heating up.
catbarf on 23/3/2012 at 13:37
Quote Posted by Muzman
Yes, dismal dismal cherry-picked studies boosting the NRA position and ignoring that even where firearm possession is low, crime rates have been dropping.
To be fair, those studies are cherry-picked too- just look at DC and much of the UK, low gun ownership doesn't reduce crime, what the connection is (if there is one at all) is unclear.
faetal on 23/3/2012 at 13:38
I've never bought the idea that gun ownership makes everyone safer. In the UK, sure, if I am attacked, my options are only to either run, or to fight with my fists, but this means that when I am attacked (it has happened a few times) I am attacked with fists. If anyone wishing to deprive me of valuables had to assume that I could be carrying a gun, then they are going to be far more likely to shoot me if I do anything which even vaguely resembles a sudden move. In addition to this, any high crime nation which is filled with guns, is going to end up as a high gun crime nation, and the US certainly tops the world leader board per capita in that respect.
It ends up as an arms race. Crime doesn't fall when citizens are gun owners (again, the US stats paint a pretty picture), it just means that criminals need to match the threat with guns of their own. While licensed gun holders may not be accountable for most gun crime, the very presence of such a thriving gun industry is concomitant with there being a great deal of hardware floating about, being sold, stolen, misappropriated - etc..
Just my £0.02
Pyrian on 23/3/2012 at 18:01
I would think that the right to self-defense would apply to the person being chased down by an armed assailant, rather than vice-versa.
