# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 283
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5641 "2015-07-31T12:15:27Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > To clarify: we let police shoot people in the performance of their function but they then have to demonstrate that it was necessary (via due process), in the same way that a civilian killing another in self-defense must demonstrate the necessity. You are correct that it’s the same, in that they don’t have to demonstrate the necessity at all (in 49 states). If there isn’t strong evidence that it wasn’t self defence, the process that is due is to not charge them with a crime. > [@](#): > > We don’t (or rather we shouldn’t) just take their word for it without proof, and it’s only a contradiction if you think making police officers justify taking a human life is a bad thing. We don’t make people prove their innocence, we expect those accusing them to prove their guilt. This refers to charging them with a crime, not with them keeping their job - it may be right to sack someone who can’t be proven guilty of a crime. But that person still keeps their presumed innocence, as far as the law is concerned. I’ll say again what I’ve said before. Someone who kills in self defence is (in almost all circumstances) the _victim_ of a crime, not a criminal. The other circumstances are tragic mistakes, when they are still not a criminal. What you are asking is that the victim of a crime prove themselves not to be a criminal - that is morally unacceptable, and fortunately becoming legally unacceptable in more and more places. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5642 "2015-07-31T12:25:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > We don’t make people prove their innocence, we expect those accusing them to prove their guilt. So why do you oppose appointing a special prosecutor to prove them guilty? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5643 "2015-07-31T12:58:44Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ll say again what I’ve said before. Someone who kills in self defence is (in almost all circumstances) the _victim_ of a crime, not a criminal. The other circumstances are tragic mistakes, when they are still not a criminal. What you are asking is that the victim of a crime prove themselves not to be a criminal - that is morally unacceptable, and fortunately becoming legally unacceptable in more and more places. Except that we \*\*do \*\*make people who kill in self-defense prove that they are in fact a victim and not a criminal. That’s how we determine it was self-defense and not just a post hoc excuse tagged on to murder. Were you not aware of this? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5644 "2015-07-31T13:01:05Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > With libtards like that blaring out their Marxist pro-criminal blather on YouTube and SDMB, it’s no wonder LEOs are starting to prefer good clean kills over the paperwork and second-guessing of an arrest. Thankfully your name begins with an ‘S’. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5645 "2015-07-31T13:03:03Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > Thankfully your name begins with an ‘S’. I assumed it was sarcasm/parody. But, without the smilie, idk. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5646 "2015-07-31T13:11:03Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Except that we \*\*do \*\*make people who kill in self-defense prove that they are in fact a victim and not a criminal. That’s how we determine it was self-defense and not just a post hoc excuse tagged on to murder. Were you not aware of this? Only in one of the 50 states is that the case. Self-defence is no longer an affirmative defence anywhere else in the US. Hopefully everywhere will follow that, and stop making the victims of crime prove their innocence. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5647 "2015-07-31T13:53:19Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > I assumed it was sarcasm/parody. > > But, without the smilie, idk. It’s almost certainly sarcasm, but in light of Steophan’s latest, it seems logical to make certain the other person is dead in any self-defense situation (or what can be later claimed as such). Even if they’re running away, chase them down and finish them off to minimize later “second guessing”. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5648 "2015-07-31T14:06:35Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Self-defence is no longer an affirmative defence anywhere else in the US. Adaher, is that you pretending to be Steophan? 'Cause that’s about the dumbest statement I have come across on the SDMB in a long, long time. In your fight against ignorance, you have knocked yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5649 "2015-07-31T14:13:51Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Only in one of the 50 states is that the case. Self-defence is no longer an affirmative defence anywhere else in the US. Hopefully everywhere will follow that, and stop making the victims of crime prove their innocence. You seem to be confusing the ‘burden of proof’ carried by the state (except in Ohio) with ‘presumption of innocence.’ Prosecutors are not bound by any such presumption; in fact it’s their job to determine if an _admitted killer_ can be charged with a criminal violation for that act and if so, if they can then be prosecuted on that charge with a reasonable expectation of success. So yes, the state must prove false beyond a reasonable doubt one or more of the statutory elements (which differ from state to state) necessary for a jury to determine the validity of a self-defense plea. But that plea can and should be defended in court whenever a prosecutor sees a good case for criminal liability. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5650 "2015-07-31T14:45:33Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > You seem to be confusing the ‘burden of proof’ carried by the state (except in Ohio) with ‘presumption of innocence.’ Prosecutors are not bound by any such presumption; in fact it’s their job to determine if an _admitted killer_ can be charged with a criminal violation for that act and if so, if they can then be prosecuted on that charge with a reasonable expectation of success. > > So yes, the state must prove false beyond a reasonable doubt one or more of the statutory elements (which differ from state to state) necessary for a jury to determine the validity of a self-defense plea. But that plea can and should be defended in court whenever a prosecutor sees a good case for criminal liability. What?? I can’t just shoot someone in a dark alley and then claim self-defense if they catch me. If there are no witnesses, how can the state prove me wrong. 😕 I feared for my life, I tells ya. Better shoot a lion, instead. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5651 "2015-07-31T15:37:38Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Adaher, is that you pretending to be Steophan? 'Cause that’s about the dumbest statement I have come across on the SDMB in a long, long time. In your fight against ignorance, you have knocked yourself out. Nope, it’s a fact that has been cited repeatedly in this thread and others. You appear, like many people here, to be confusing what you think the law should be with what it actually is. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5652 "2015-07-31T15:43:40Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > You seem to be confusing the ‘burden of proof’ carried by the state (except in Ohio) with ‘presumption of innocence.’ Prosecutors are not bound by any such presumption; in fact it’s their job to determine if an _admitted killer_ can be charged with a criminal violation for that act and if so, if they can then be prosecuted on that charge with a reasonable expectation of success. > > So yes, the state must prove false beyond a reasonable doubt one or more of the statutory elements (which differ from state to state) necessary for a jury to determine the validity of a self-defense plea. But that plea can and should be defended in court whenever a prosecutor sees a good case for criminal liability. The prosecutor may not require the defendant to prove themselves innocent. The burden is always, and entirely, on the prosecutor to prove guilt. And they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt _all_ the elements of the crime, not just “one or more”. Yes, if there’s strong evidence that it was not self defence they should be tried. But only in that case, and in the absence of that evidence they retain the innocence they are presumed to have. You have, perhaps inadvertently, hit on why most people don’t falsely claim self defence when they’ve actually committed a murder - because it requires admitting to all the other elements of murder, including killing someone. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5653 "2015-07-31T16:12:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The prosecutor may not require the defendant to prove themselves innocent. The burden is always, and entirely, on the prosecutor to prove guilt. And they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt _all_ the elements of the crime, not just “one or more”. > > Yes, if there’s strong evidence that it was not self defence they should be tried. But only in that case, and in the absence of that evidence they retain the innocence they are presumed to have. > > You have, perhaps inadvertently, hit on why most people don’t falsely claim self defence when they’ve actually committed a murder - because it requires admitting to all the other elements of murder, including killing someone. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Your first two paragraphs are incorrect, and your third paragraph begs the question. I’ll keep the explanations simple for you. First, “elements of the crime” is not the same thing as ‘elements of self-defense’. Disproving self-defense can be done by showing that _any_ of the conditions typically required by law for justification were not present: reasonable fear, reasonable belief that the force used was necessary, that the ‘defender’ did not provoke or instigate the altercation, that the incident did not occur while the defendant was engaged in other criminal activity. In some states, that the defendant did not ignore a reasonable and clear route of retreat. Second, “presumption of innocence” is not the same thing as presumption of self-defense. Unless evidence actually exists to _show_ self-defense, the state does not presume it merely because it’s asserted by the killer they’ve identified. The state is supposed to investigate wrongful deaths and prosecute those who perpetrate them if evidence exists that points to an individual who committed the act. They don’t look for evidence that a killing was _not_ self defense, they look for evidence that _x_ person was killed and that _y_ person or persons did it. Credible or strong evidence that points to self defense is indeed a reason not to prosecute, but absent that evidence for self defense, the state should prosecute. Third, you assume that self-defense is rarely claimed falsely and offer as evidence the fact that a claim of self-defense requires admitting you killed somebody. That’s not a valid construction. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5654 "2015-07-31T16:19:17Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Self-defence is no longer an affirmative defence anywhere else in the US. When I googled “Is self-defen **s** e an affirmative defense” I got a mess of links, none of which address the question directly, but all of which presume that the answer is yes, and many of which seem to be written by lawyers. They are not all speaking about the same state’s jurisdiction, either. Can you provide some documentation for what you’re saying here? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5655 "2015-07-31T16:57:18Z")
> **[SC cop killed teen with two shots to the back during weed bust -- and didn’t...](https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/sc-cop-killed-teen-with-two-shots-to-the-back-during-weed-bust-and-didnt-even-report-it-attorney/)** > > Police shot and killed a South Carolina man during an undercover marijuana sting -- and his family's attorney said evidence shows the 19-year-old was shot twice in the back from near-point blank range.Zachary Hammond was shot to death Sunday night in... _ **Cop kills kid. Doesn’t even report it.** _ Later claims “self-defense” and says kid was driving right at him. However… "The autopsy revealed the first shot entered Hammond’s left rear shoulder, said Bland, and the second one entered five inches away at a downward angle into his side from behind — cutting through the man’s heart and lungs before exiting his lower right side. “The shots were so close in proximity to each other that it would be physically impossible unless the car was stopped and the officer came up very close to an open window,” Bland said. “Picture a car going 20 miles an hour and I’m fortunate enough to get a shot off, and I hit you — there’s no way I can get the second shot if the car’s going 20 miles an hour.”" ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5656 "2015-07-31T16:59:24Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > [SC cop killed teen with two shots to the back during weed bust -- and didn’t even report it: attorney](http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/sc-cop-killed-teen-with-two-shots-to-the-back-during-weed-bust-and-didnt-even-report-it-attorney/) > > _ **Cop kills kid. Doesn’t even report it.** _ That’s unpossible. That kid looks white. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5657 "2015-07-31T17:15:55Z")
The elements of the offence of talking out one’s ass are: 1. Having made an asinine statement, and 2. Having done so intentionally. If the prosecution proves with evidence all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, then a conviction will follow unless the accused succeeds with an affirmative defence, such as imbecility. [PATTERSON v. NEW YORK., 432 U.S. 197 (1977), Supreme Court of United States.](https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=11324761366859005935&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0CBwQgAMoADAAahUKEwj9r82E7oXHAhUMSZIKHaSJA98) There really needs to be a vaccine for your level of willful ignorance, Steophan. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5658 "2015-07-31T18:45:43Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > [SC cop killed teen with two shots to the back during weed bust -- and didn’t even report it: attorney](http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/sc-cop-killed-teen-with-two-shots-to-the-back-during-weed-bust-and-didnt-even-report-it-attorney/) > > _ **Cop kills kid. Doesn’t even report it.** _ > > Later claims “self-defense” and says kid was driving right at him. Didn’t _South Park_ do a version of this? > [@](#): > > JIMBO > Boys! Lookie there! > > A cute, fuzzy little black [del]bear[/del] person sits in a nearby clearing, licking its paws. > > JIMBO > That there’s a Rocky Mountain Black [del]Bear[/del] person. One of the few remaining of its kind. Isn’t it beautiful? > > The [del]bear[/del] person just sits there and blinks. > > JIMBO > My God it’s coming right for us!!! > > Jimbo whips out his huge rifle and shoots the [del]bear[/del] person dead. > > Stan can’t believe his eyes. > > STAN > Hey! [del]It[/del] He wasn’t coming right for us! [del]It[/del] He was just sitting there! > > JIMBO > SHHH! Not so loud!! Now that there’s just a technicality. > > KYLE > What d’ya mean? > > JIMBO > You see boys, the Democrats have passed a lot of laws trying to stop us from [del]hunting[/del] arresting. > > CARTMAN > Democrats piss me off! > > JIMBO > They say we can’t shoot certain [del]animals[/del] people anymore unless they’re posing an immediate threat. Therefore, before we shoot some[del]thing[/del]body, we have to say; “[del]It’s[/del] He’s coming right for us!” > > STAN > Wow, you’re smart, Uncle Jimbo! > > NED > (pointing) > Jimbo LOOK! > > A beautiful little [del]doe[/del] non-cop comes over the hill. > > JIMBO > Oh, it’s a [del]deer[/del] non-cop. Looks like about a 46 gauge, Ned. > > Ned pulls out a HUGE bazooka and hands it to Jimbo like a golf caddy. Jimbo props the bazooka on his shoulder. The boys and Ned jump on the ground commando style. > > JIMBO > IT’S COMIN’ RIGHT FOR US!!! > > The beautiful little [del]doe[/del] non-cop looks on peacefully right where she is. > > BOOM!!! Jimbo fires the bazooka at the [del]doe[/del] non-cop and totally obliterates it into a million bloody little pieces. > > CARTMAN > Kick ass! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5659 "2015-07-31T18:47:51Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Your first two paragraphs are incorrect, and your third paragraph begs the question. I’ll keep the explanations simple for you. > > First, “elements of the crime” is not the same thing as ‘elements of self-defense’. Disproving self-defense can be done by showing that _any_ of the conditions typically required by law for justification were not present: reasonable fear, reasonable belief that the force used was necessary, that the ‘defender’ did not provoke or instigate the altercation, that the incident did not occur while the defendant was engaged in other criminal activity. In some states, that the defendant did not ignore a reasonable and clear route of retreat. > > Second, “presumption of innocence” is not the same thing as presumption of self-defense. Unless evidence actually exists to _show_ self-defense, the state does not presume it merely because it’s asserted by the killer they’ve identified. The state is supposed to investigate wrongful deaths and prosecute those who perpetrate them if evidence exists that points to an individual who committed the act. They don’t look for evidence that a killing was _not_ self defense, they look for evidence that _x_ person was killed and that _y_ person or persons did it. Credible or strong evidence that points to self defense is indeed a reason not to prosecute, but absent that evidence for self defense, the state should prosecute. > > Third, you assume that self-defense is rarely claimed falsely and offer as evidence the fact that a claim of self-defense requires admitting you killed somebody. That’s not a valid construction. In fairness to **Steophan** , he never studied law, doesn’t live in the country, and educates himself solely through message board postings. So go easy on the guy. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5660 "2015-07-31T19:08:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > In fairness to **Steophan** , he never studied law, doesn’t live in the country, and educates himself solely through message board postings. So go easy on the guy. Well, I tried not to be insulting. And, in fairness to _me_, I never studied law either, and only have access to the same internets as everyone else. Maybe he should stop skimming articles for language that seems to support what he already believes. (Just a thought, **Steophan**. It works for other people.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=282) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=284)