# 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:** 285
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5681 "2015-07-31T21:14:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why are you supporting kangaroo courts and show trials of people who are not going to be proven guilty? This crap right here is why \*\*Steophan \*\*is such a shit poster. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5682 "2015-07-31T21:30:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But that’s not what I said – I said that a prosecutor might strongly believe that the suspect is guilty, but only think there is a 30% chance of winning (perhaps some of the evidence is inadmissible, for example). In such a case, it would be entirely ethical (in my view) to proceed to trial. That’s a contradiction - he is only guilty if found guilty by the court, until that point he’s innocent. > [@](#): > > Some very obvious examples are the Civil Rights murders in the South – in many cases, due to extremely racist juries (and often racist judges), there was very little chance of getting a conviction, but it was still the right thing to do to proceed to trial (for what seem to be obvious reasons to me). That’s a fair point, though - I was assuming fair juries. I’ll change what I said to someone should only be put on trial if there’s a high probability that a fair court would find them guilty. “High probability” is intentionally left vague, and should be left to prosecutional discretion; however, a prosecutor who fails to win a majority of cases he brings is, in my opinion, failing to do his job properly. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5683 "2015-07-31T21:33:18Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I think this is where your argument fails. The prosecutor only needs to show the claim of self defense is unreasonable. That does not require positive evidence, only a line of reasoning that the jury finds persuasive. It would be illogical for a judge to impose a burden on a prosecutor to prove a negative. No, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. It’s not the judge that imposes that burden, it’s the law. And morality, and justice. Killing someone in self defence is not a crime. It is not wrong. It is not an act that deserves punishment or censure, and it’s usually a sign that someone is a victim of crime. To convict someone who claims to have killed in self defence of murder without proving that it wasn’t self defence is, as I’ve repeatedly said, disgustingly wrong. That it may be difficult to prove that is absolutely fucking irrelevant. ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5684 "2015-07-31T21:36:11Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, this is false. That you persist in perpetuating this misunderstanding of the law is despicable. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5685 "2015-07-31T21:36:21Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > This crap right here is why \*\*Steophan \*\*is such a shit poster. Well for me, it’s the racism first, but yeah otherwise I agree. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5686 "2015-07-31T21:42:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > As I have demonstrated repeatedly, this is false. That you persist in perpetuating this misunderstanding of the law is despicable. No, you haven’t. You’ve simply stated that it’s not, despite repeated cites, in this thread and many others, that it’s the way I say. The law is what it is, not what you want it to be. Honestly, there’s no real excuse to be unaware of this law if you have any interest in the subject. It’s been all over the media, in relation to several high profile cases over the last few years. And yet people like you still try to claim that laws are still the way they were a decade ago, and worse still to claim that changes that make it harder to convict innocent people are bad changes. ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5687 "2015-07-31T21:44:59Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > This crap right here is why \*\*Steophan \*\*is such a shit poster. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Well for me, it’s the racism first, but yeah otherwise I agree. Well you’ve both added a great deal to the threat with your posts that contain nothing but falsehoods and insults. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5688 "2015-07-31T21:59:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That’s a contradiction - he is only guilty if found guilty by the court, until that point he’s innocent. I think you know what I mean. > [@](#): > > That’s a fair point, though - I was assuming fair juries. I’ll change what I said to someone should only be put on trial if there’s a high probability that a fair court would find them guilty. “High probability” is intentionally left vague, and should be left to prosecutional discretion; however, a prosecutor who fails to win a majority of cases he brings is, in my opinion, failing to do his job properly. I think most of the disagreement here is inside the concepts here that are “left vague”, whether intentionally or not. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5689 "2015-07-31T22:09:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, you haven’t. You’ve simply stated that it’s not, despite repeated cites, in this thread and many others, that it’s the way I say. The law is what it is, not what you want it to be. > > Honestly, there’s no real excuse to be unaware of this law if you have any interest in the subject. It’s been all over the media, in relation to several high profile cases over the last few years. And yet people like you still try to claim that laws are still the way they were a decade ago, and worse still to claim that changes that make it harder to convict innocent people are bad changes. It seems to me that it’s entirely possible that the prosecution could establish a line of reasoning that the jury finds convincing enough to eliminate any claim of self-defense “beyond a reasonable doubt”… For example, in a no-witness murder case in which the killer claims the victim attacked him first, but with evidence that the killer had planned the encounter, had a motive to kill the victim, and had previously told others that he wanted the person dead, the jury may decide that the case is established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense, despite the lack of physical evidence that would disprove that the victim attacked the killer first. My understanding of the legal concepts of murder trials would allow a guilty verdict, which is (from my understanding) contrary to your assertions about what is required. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5690 "2015-07-31T22:12:59Z")
When has there ever been a case where the only evidence was the defendant’s claim of self defense? A circumstance where, for example, somebody walks into a police station and announces “I killed a guy in self defense and I’m not saying anything else”, i.e. providing no details police can use in their investigation. Assuming police identify the suspect and get a warrant to search their home and workplace (and find no victim or evidence of a victim), and question his associates (assuming they can find any) and get no information about a murder, and if they check for recent reports of corpses being discovered and find none that can be linked to the claimant, then I guess they _would_ have to let him go and no prosecutor could continue or jury convict. If there _is_ a body, though, and witnesses to the circumstances and maybe a weapon that can be linked via forensics… then, yes, proceed to indictments, possibly trials, possibly convictions and possibly imprisonments. A claim of self-defense does not as a matter of practicality exist in a vacuum. For what it’s worth, Zimmerman’s defense involved calling witnesses to support his claim of self-defense; his assertion made before the trial (and to which he did not personally testify, though he was under no obligation to) was not enough to get the case kicked. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5691 "2015-07-31T22:22:32Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The law is what it is, not what you want it to be. And the law says the claim of self defense must be “reasonable”. That is not a standard that can be reached objectively, like finding fingerprints or DNA. Demonstrating the quality of reasonableness is not proving that a crime has been committed, only that self-defense is not a valid defense. The prosecutor still has to present evidence that the defendant committed the crime. Since self defense is not a crime, determining the reasonableness of a self defense claim is not arguing guilt or innocence, only persuading the jury that it is unreasonable. Why is that so hard for you? ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5692 "2015-07-31T22:28:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It seems to me that it’s entirely possible that the prosecution could establish a line of reasoning that the jury finds convincing enough to eliminate any claim of self-defense “beyond a reasonable doubt”… > > For example, in a no-witness murder case in which the killer claims the victim attacked him first, but with evidence that the killer had planned the encounter, had a motive to kill the victim, and had previously told others that he wanted the person dead, the jury may decide that the case is established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense, despite the lack of physical evidence that would disprove that the victim attacked the killer first. > > My understanding of the legal concepts of murder trials would allow a guilty verdict, which is (from my understanding) contrary to your assertions about what is required. I would hope, at the very least, that someone could not be convicted of murder in that circumstance, simply because it is possible that despite that planning and intent, the deceased did, in fact, attack the defendant without provocation in such a way that could justify self defence. To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt you would need to rule that possibility out. If the law allows such a conviction, the law is immoral. This can, and will, lead to some people getting away with killing people when, if we had all the facts, they would be convicted. That is not a problem - convicting innocent people is a problem. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5693 "2015-07-31T22:34:48Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Why is that so hard for you? Why is what so hard for me? The state have to prove the defendant guilty. That’s not a complicated thing, but you (and others) seem unwilling to accept it. It’s been cited many, many times, by me and many others, in this thread and many others. If you refuse to accept what is clearly the case, I can’t help you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5694 "2015-07-31T22:37:44Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I would hope, at the very least, that someone could not be convicted of murder in that circumstance, simply because it is possible that despite that planning and intent, the deceased did, in fact, attack the defendant without provocation in such a way that could justify self defence. To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt you would need to rule that possibility out. > > If the law allows such a conviction, the law is immoral. This can, and will, lead to some people getting away with killing people when, if we had all the facts, they would be convicted. That is not a problem - convicting innocent people is a problem. I disagree on most of this, except that convicting innocent people is a problem. That’s a problem, but so is allowing innocent people to get away with murder. I don’t believe the scenario described puts an onerous burden on the innocent. ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5695 "2015-07-31T22:40:43Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why is what so hard for me? The state have to prove the defendant guilty. Of course. Guilt or innocence is an objective conclusion. But they only have to prove the claim of self defense is unreasonable. That is a subjective conclusion, so all a prosecutor has to do is present a line of reasoning that persuades a jury that it is unreasonable. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5696 "2015-07-31T22:42:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > but so is allowing innocent people to get away with murder. Mistake, or comment on my opinion that someone not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is innocent? Either way, allowing people who can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a crime to go free is not a problem - it’s a fundamental part of justice. ---
**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, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5697 "2015-07-31T22:49:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Of course. Guilt or innocence is an objective conclusion. But they only have to prove the claim of self defense is unreasonable. That is a subjective conclusion, so all a prosecutor has to do is present a line of reasoning that persuades a jury that it is unreasonable. The state have to (except in Ohio) prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in a self defence case. This is fact, well cited, here and elsewhere. Either what you are saying is a paraphrase of that, or it’s wrong. I cited the California law earlier, Florida law has been exhaustively cited, [here’s another example.](http://www.businessinsider.com/stand-your-ground-not-used-in-florida-2013-7?IR=T) > [@](#): > > In self-defense cases, Florida prosecutors have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not act in self-defense. I’m not going through every fucking state to prove you wrong (again), mainly because it’s already been done. It’s not some big secret that the right to self defence has finally started to be properly recognised across America in the last decade. The law doesn’t work the way you want just because you want it to, no matter how much you claim it or how much you insult me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5698 "2015-07-31T23:53:14Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Mistake, or comment on my opinion that someone not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is innocent? A mistake. > [@](#): > > Either way, allowing people who can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a crime to go free is not a problem - it’s a fundamental part of justice. This isn’t what we’re disagreeing on – we’re disagreeing on what might constitute “beyond reasonable doubt”, not whether this bar must be met. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5699 "2015-07-31T23:55:14Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The state have to (except in Ohio) prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in a self defence case. This is fact, well cited, here and elsewhere. Either what you are saying is a paraphrase of that, or it’s wrong. I cited the California law earlier, Florida law has been exhaustively cited, [here’s another example.](http://www.businessinsider.com/stand-your-ground-not-used-in-florida-2013-7?IR=T) You’re talking past him – he’s saying that if the prosecution demonstrates that the claim of self-defense is unreasonable, this can be enough (paired with other evidence, such as an admission by the defendant) to constitute “beyond reasonable doubt” for the jury. No one is arguing that the jury does not need to be convinced it was murder beyond reasonable doubt, we’re just arguing about what can constitute a case that proves murder beyond reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/5700 "2015-08-01T00:02:09Z")
[Gay guy dragged out of the house and beaten by four NYPD cops yelling “faggot”, caught on tape.](http://www.newnownext.com/gay-man-pulled-from-home-beaten-by-nypd-officers-yelling-faggot-in-horrifying-video/07/2015/?xrs=synd_facebook_logo) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=284) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=286)