Self defense ftw /thread.
Any good gun control convos bouncing around?
Quite the contrast from here in england, even if you are getting attacked and you PUNCH them, you will get arrested if the attacker presses charges (which they have a right to do), then you have a criminal record.
You can’t even defend yourself if you are being robbed, if you injure the guy that breaks into your fucking house you still get arrested.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Fuhj wrote:
I hope that 10 years from now, this event gives my kids a better chance of not being bullies nor being victims. Of course I know that would be mostly on me.[/quote]
Sadly, it won’t change a thing. Mankind (men in particular) have been engaging in violence against other men since the first caveman. And it starts in childhood. The only thing we can do is that the enlightened among us enlighten our offspring and cross our fingers that they do no harm and that no harm comes their way. It’s like-minded people, making a difference with their children and those they mentor that make a difference; not some ruling in FL (or any other State). Because tomorrow, some mis-guided, not-getting-enough-attention-jerk-off, is going to get off his bus or out of school tomorrow and fuck with some poor kid that wants no part of it.
The world can be a cruel place. [/quote]
True.[/quote]
I told my wife before we.got married is that if we have a kid they will be learning some sort of self defense starting at 5. I could careless about the self discipline aspect of it, I want my kid to be able to defend themself.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the kid tried to get away, it has nothing to do with the “stand your ground” law, it’s just self defense.
[/quote]
Correct. This kid fled, was pursued, was attacked, and cornered.
The bully got what he deserved.
The only thing left is to disbar the prosecutor who brought this absurd case.[/quote]
We agree about the outcome but realistically, how do you not bring this case and let a judge or grand jury decide? I’m assuming it was tracked right to a judge b/c it was a juvenile case but I think in the case of a death, the prosecutor really has to punt and let the system decide. Can you imagine if they bring no charges? The reaction from the family of the deceased not to mention those that just won’t understand the law? I think a ruling needed to be made here and there is no reasonable way for a prosecutor NOT to charge. Not looking to derail the thread though…
[/quote]
Not a “derail” statement really. The prosecutors had to put it before the judge due to the severity of the charge. Yeah, he was being charged as a juvenile, however, it was a murder charge. Definitely goes before the bench. Now, look a lil closer at what the prosecutors decided after the ruling: no appeal.
[quote]Rodimus Black wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the kid tried to get away, it has nothing to do with the “stand your ground” law, it’s just self defense.
[/quote]
Correct. This kid fled, was pursued, was attacked, and cornered.
The bully got what he deserved.
The only thing left is to disbar the prosecutor who brought this absurd case.[/quote]
We agree about the outcome but realistically, how do you not bring this case and let a judge or grand jury decide? I’m assuming it was tracked right to a judge b/c it was a juvenile case but I think in the case of a death, the prosecutor really has to punt and let the system decide. Can you imagine if they bring no charges? The reaction from the family of the deceased not to mention those that just won’t understand the law? I think a ruling needed to be made here and there is no reasonable way for a prosecutor NOT to charge. Not looking to derail the thread though…
[/quote]
Not a “derail” statement really. The prosecutors had to put it before the judge due to the severity of the charge. Yeah, he was being charged as a juvenile, however, it was a murder charge. Definitely goes before the bench. Now, look a lil closer at what the prosecutors decided after the ruling: no appeal. [/quote]
Which was entirely appropriate. Prosecution did their job and a judge actually made a tough ruling. The system worked here.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Quite the contrast from here in england, even if you are getting attacked and you PUNCH them, you will get arrested if the attacker presses charges (which they have a right to do), then you have a criminal record.
You can’t even defend yourself if you are being robbed, if you injure the guy that breaks into your fucking house you still get arrested.
[/quote]
Is this true? I can’t believe a first world country doesn’t have self defense laws.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Quite the contrast from here in england, even if you are getting attacked and you PUNCH them, you will get arrested if the attacker presses charges (which they have a right to do), then you have a criminal record.
You can’t even defend yourself if you are being robbed, if you injure the guy that breaks into your fucking house you still get arrested.
[/quote]
Is this true? I can’t believe a first world country doesn’t have self defense laws.[/quote]
Yes it is, and I was told this by a police officer on christmas day after some drunken dickhead tried attacking me, this is exactly what he said: “If something like this happens again, don’t hit them back, because if you do you will be arrested.”
Edit - There is still some leniency on defending yourself in your home though (not great, but still), and the laws were changed slightly recently:
Read bottom two paragraphs
That guy still got arrested for murder though:
This woman didn’t:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the kid tried to get away, it has nothing to do with the “stand your ground” law, it’s just self defense.
[/quote]
Correct. This kid fled, was pursued, was attacked, and cornered.
The bully got what he deserved.
The only thing left is to disbar the prosecutor who brought this absurd case.[/quote]
We agree about the outcome but realistically, how do you not bring this case and let a judge or grand jury decide? I’m assuming it was tracked right to a judge b/c it was a juvenile case but I think in the case of a death, the prosecutor really has to punt and let the system decide. Can you imagine if they bring no charges? The reaction from the family of the deceased not to mention those that just won’t understand the law? I think a ruling needed to be made here and there is no reasonable way for a prosecutor NOT to charge. Not looking to derail the thread though…
[/quote]
It’s not a derail, and many share your position, although yours is not the traditional approach of the law.
And, to me, it’s a shame the law has moved from it’s roots on the issue.
In the true sense of the prosecutor’s oath (which is different than a mere lawyer’s oath), this is a classic case where “prosecutorial discretion” must come into play.
Specifically, no matter how serious the event, prosecutors are not supposed to bring a case unless: (1) they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime they charge has been committed; and (2) that both the letter and the “spirit”* of the law have been violated.
The policy reason for “prosecutorial discretion” is prosecution is often a punishment in and of itself (confinement until trial, large fees to lawyers), even if you get a “not guilty.”
Here, the self-defense nature of this case is plain as day.
The prosecutor should have had the balls to say “This was self-defense, I am not putting the real victim through the punishment here.”
Prosecutors in Oklahoma just did this with the 18 year girl who shot a home invader. By the letter of the law, they could have forced her to go prove self-defense, but they saw the defense and declined to waste the People’s money and put her through more punishment.
Prosecutors in the northeast, however, tend to be timid little twerps, so they punt to a grand jury or whatnot so they can pass the buck.
The grand jury is a double-check on that prosecutorial discretion, not where the system begins.
- An example of where the spirit of the law is not met is another recent case with the lady with the CHL who tried to check her pistol at the 9/11 memorial and was arrested. Clearly, this lady was not a threat to the public and Bloomberg’s anti-gun Nazis shouldn’t be trying to give her 10 years in prison. That’s a classic “prosecutorial discretion” example that should have occurred.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the kid tried to get away, it has nothing to do with the “stand your ground” law, it’s just self defense.
[/quote]
Correct. This kid fled, was pursued, was attacked, and cornered.
The bully got what he deserved.
The only thing left is to disbar the prosecutor who brought this absurd case.[/quote]
We agree about the outcome but realistically, how do you not bring this case and let a judge or grand jury decide? I’m assuming it was tracked right to a judge b/c it was a juvenile case but I think in the case of a death, the prosecutor really has to punt and let the system decide. Can you imagine if they bring no charges? The reaction from the family of the deceased not to mention those that just won’t understand the law? I think a ruling needed to be made here and there is no reasonable way for a prosecutor NOT to charge. Not looking to derail the thread though…
[/quote]
It’s not a derail, and many share your position, although yours is not the traditional approach of the law.
And, to me, it’s a shame the law has moved from it’s roots on the issue.
In the true sense of the prosecutor’s oath (which is different than a mere lawyer’s oath), this is a classic case where “prosecutorial discretion” must come into play.
Specifically, no matter how serious the event, prosecutors are not supposed to bring a case unless: (1) they believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime they charge has been committed; and (2) that both the letter and the “spirit”* of the law have been violated.
The policy reason for “prosecutorial discretion” is prosecution is often a punishment in and of itself (confinement until trial, large fees to lawyers), even if you get a “not guilty.”
Here, the self-defense nature of this case is plain as day.
The prosecutor should have had the balls to say “This was self-defense, I am not putting the real victim through the punishment here.”
Prosecutors in Oklahoma just did this with the 18 year girl who shot a home invader. By the letter of the law, they could have forced her to go prove self-defense, but they saw the defense and declined to waste the People’s money and put her through more punishment.
Prosecutors in the northeast, however, tend to be timid little twerps, so they punt to a grand jury or whatnot so they can pass the buck.
The grand jury is a double-check on that prosecutorial discretion, not where the system begins.
- An example of where the spirit of the law is not met is another recent case with the lady with the CHL who tried to check her pistol at the 9/11 memorial and was arrested. Clearly, this lady was not a threat to the public and Bloomberg’s anti-gun Nazis shouldn’t be trying to give her 10 years in prison. That’s a classic “prosecutorial discretion” example that should have occurred.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this but you’re viewing this with the full benefit of the (recited) facts. Based upon the information then available, the prosecution may very well have believed that the law was violated. For instance, given the minor’s right not to incriminate himself, they may very well NOT have had his version of what occurred until trial. Without his version of his clear (we agree) self-defense, there certainly appears to be grounds for a prosecution.
Parenthetically, do you have any references to the prosecutor’s oath? I’m interested b/c it certainly does not seem to be true in practice.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Quite the contrast from here in england, even if you are getting attacked and you PUNCH them, you will get arrested if the attacker presses charges (which they have a right to do), then you have a criminal record.
You can’t even defend yourself if you are being robbed, if you injure the guy that breaks into your fucking house you still get arrested.
[/quote]
Is this true? I can’t believe a first world country doesn’t have self defense laws.[/quote]
the same thing can happen here in the US. If you’re out at a bar/club (best scenario I could think of for adults fighting lol) and someone comes at you out of no where outside and starts something, you’ll both be arrested more than likely if the cops have to break it up.
In that sort of case it could very well be a “your word against his” kinda thing unless there are a lot of witnesses or something. Lame
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Parenthetically, do you have any references to the prosecutor’s oath? I’m interested b/c it certainly does not seem to be true in practice. [/quote]
The oath is easy, it’s some variation of “I hereby agree to follow the Rules of Professional Responsbility for Prosecutors for [insert state].”
The ROPR for P (which I ginned down to a couple sentences) is a whole book, but are all variations of the ABA model rules.
Here is a link to get that started:
" . . . . prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons."
And you are correct, that most prosecutors have forgotten they are “not simply an advocate.”
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Parenthetically, do you have any references to the prosecutor’s oath? I’m interested b/c it certainly does not seem to be true in practice. [/quote]
And you are correct, that most prosecutors have forgotten they are “not simply an advocate.”[/quote]
Not only that, but political puppet all too often as well.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Quite the contrast from here in england, even if you are getting attacked and you PUNCH them, you will get arrested if the attacker presses charges (which they have a right to do), then you have a criminal record.
You can’t even defend yourself if you are being robbed, if you injure the guy that breaks into your fucking house you still get arrested.
[/quote]
Is this true? I can’t believe a first world country doesn’t have self defense laws.[/quote]
Yes it is, and I was told this by a police officer on christmas day after some drunken dickhead tried attacking me, this is exactly what he said: “If something like this happens again, don’t hit them back, because if you do you will be arrested.”
Edit - There is still some leniency on defending yourself in your home though (not great, but still), and the laws were changed slightly recently:
Read bottom two paragraphs
That guy still got arrested for murder though:
This woman didn’t:
[/quote]
wooooow, that’s rediculous. The guy gets arrested for suspicion of murder while the “courageous” dame gets “praised by a judge”
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]
You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.
You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.
There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.
The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.
If that’s not a basic human right, what is?
As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.
As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder.
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]
You have clearly never been in a situation where someone is shot or stabbed.
I have shot people before, with an M4, legally. Several, in fact.
Unless you get a head shot, you can put 6 or 7 through someone (and this is a rifle, mind you, not much weaken pistol or even weaker knife) and they keep going for a minute or so. They are probably dead on their feet, but they keep punching or (in the case I am personally thinking about) shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.
It’s not Hollywood. One shot (or stab) may eventually kill someone, but it takes time.
In the mean time, you have to keep going at it (or run like hell) until they bleed out.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.
[/quote]
huh?
care to clarify?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
shooting an AK47 at your buddies, even though you’ve nailed them center of mass 10 times.
[/quote]
huh?
care to clarify?[/quote]
Afganistan.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
From a strictly legal POV, I still find calling stabbing someone 12 times self-defense/standing your ground to be a rather odd notion. I’m not generally a fan of slippery slope type arguments, but, by the logic of this case MANY, MANY people could quite easily be killed in a similar fashion & no charges would be brought. [/quote]
You’re engaging this with faulty reasoning.
You say “by this logic” and then reach your conclusion.
There is no “logic” to apply here - only the “law” and the law is fact specific. Under the FACTS of this case, it is a crystal clear case of self-defense which RULES OUT “many many people getting killed” unless they happen to be attacking someone that has GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY to avoid that attack.
The law here does not require you to take a beating. It all starts with that premise. I think it’s a damn good premise. I think it’s a basic human right.
If that’s not a basic human right, what is?
As Gregron already illustrated, and as I have said in countless related threads - one punch can cause serious injury or death.
As for the number of times he stabbed him, it’s VERY easy to stab someone that many times. The kid getting stabbed might not have even been aware he was cut at first and could have continued his attack. If his attack is continuing, it’s reasonable to continue stabbing. If the kid was prone and the attacked ceased and then he comes in for a few jabs - we’re talking the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or murder. [/quote]
My reasoning is not faulty, the way in which the law is interpreted changes.
Honestly, imagine you are 14/15 again witnessing the events of this case unfold. For most people, just having a knife pulled on them is deterrent enough to stop atacking/not attack in the first place.
Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the bully CONTINUING to attack after the first few stabs were delivered