That is what I was saying. If a gunslinger kills someone with no witnesses, he is untouchable if he claims he was in fear of his life. It is madness.
Self defense is a right. *Mortal *self defense is never a right and should always be the last resort. You can easily defend yourself without ever pulling the trigger on a gun or crushing a skull with a bat or stabbing another through the knife. If you kill someone, the burden of proof should ALWAYS be on YOU that it was your ONLY choice.
I agree completely.
I want to agree but fear that this proposal might overstep a bit. If there were no other witnesses and the altercation was brief with little or no direct physical contact, how could a person prove that they were acting in self-defense?
For example: you shoot at me from 50 feet away and miss. I pull out my gun and fire back, killing you. The bullet you fired is never found. How do I “prove” that you fired first and so I was only defending myself?
There would be a gun near the dead guy, it will have been recently fired…and there will more than likely be gun shot residue on his hand and possibly shirt.
While these would not ‘prove’, they would at least corroborate your version. More than enough for reasonable doubt.
Except that under the scenario as described by Death of Rats, “If you kill someone, the burden of proof should ALWAYS be on YOU that it was your ONLY choice.”
I don’t think presenting something plausible-sounding is the same as meeting a burden of proof, which is why I said that it seem to me that such a law would create a whole new branch of law, one fraught with pitfalls and other dangers which we can’t quite imagine until they have to be adjudicated, and frankly, I don’t think that’s a path we ought to go down. If someone can show me how I’m wrong, I’ll gladly reassess my opinion.
I utterly reject the idea that someone who’s in imminent fear of death should be expected to rationally evaluate the force necessary to use to prevent it, and rather should be entitled to do whatever he can to avoid it.
Someone who kills in self defence is a victim of crime, not a criminal, and to treat them as the latter is disgusting. Sadly, that’s what happens where I live, and I’m just glad to see that in this instance America is more sensible.
I’m actually fine with this, provided we take great pains to prevent the falling threshold for an “imminent fear of death” that is (IMO) a very dangerous by-product of these laws. As a gun owner, I am far less fearful of of being prosecuted for an act of self-defense than I am being shot—intentionally or collaterally—by another gun carrier attempting to neutralize a non-existent threat “just in case.” It could be argued that someone who feels the need to arm himself wherever he goes is already in fear for his life— already half-cocked, as it were. If I shoot an intruder who breaks into my home at night, it ensures that he’s no longer a threat to my life or my wife’s. Likewise if I answer my doorbell and blow away a Cub Scout selling raffle tickets.
As others have noted, hinging the legality of self-defense on the shooter’s personal definition of fear rather than that of a reasonable person creates a perverse situation in which the more paranoid or racist you are, the greater your carte blanche to kill the objects of your phobia with impunity. Those celebrating the liberalization of self defense laws should bear in mind that the rules become looser for everyone, not just them and their calm, reasonable, well-trained good guy colleagues. A law allowing me to ignore traffic lights would be wonderful— applied universally? Eh, not so much.
Very well said, VT. I concur, of course.
Michael Dunn sentenced to life without parole.
This was the Dope thread with the most extensive discussion of the Dunn case, so it seemed appropriate to post the information here,rather than start a new thread.
Thanks for the link; I also saw this hit the AP news today.
Anyone know when Curtis Reeves, the movie theatre killer, is going to trial?
According to this story, probably next year sometime.