Some background on the Neighborhood Watch case, so it does not confuse things:
It’s not relevant to the Stand-Your-Ground law, although the perpetrator claimed it was. In this case, said Watch Captain hunted a specific individual and basically murdered him in cold blood. The Police then completely boned the case from start to finish, to such a degree that what should have been an open-and-shut case is not probably unprosecutable. But all there was, was plain murder and bad policework.
Yes, the murderer claimed he was acting in self-defense. Why not? He stood to lose nothing by doing so and clouding the issue. In that respect, at least, it is similar to the case under discussion.
In your scenario, there wouldn’t be any charge in any gun-friendly jurisdiction.
In my opinion, the right to chase and kill a criminal that you catch in the act is a logical outcome of the principal of citizen’s arrest.
Note: for those of you who think that Florida’s law is being misapplied–it’s possible that it may be a similar situation as what we have here in Colorado. Not too long after our version of the Castle Doctrine was passed (called locally the “Make my Day” law), a homeowner was arrested and charged for actions that he claimed were self-defense but the authorities said were outside the scope of the law. The jury agreed with the homeowner.
After a few such cases, the scope of the law has been expanded–by juries–to the point where it is now much more permissive than the plain text of the law would indicate. As such, if a resident of Colorado feels in danger at home, he can now fire through the door or do anything else that his imagination might suggest, and there is not the slightest chance of being arrested unless for some reason there is hard evidence that it was not in fact legitimate self-defense.
What the police should have done is to have charged murder, and then given the guy the opportunity to prove self-defense before a jury. Instead, the cops themselves acted as arbiters of the facts.
So your objection is not to the law, it is to the idea that police prosecutors decide which cases to prosecute on a case-by-case basis.
I assume that you think it would be better is the police lost that power, and that all felony allegation had to be prosecuted regardless fo the chances of obtaining a conviction?
No, I can’t. The survelliance video hasn’t been released that I can find. However, from the article in the OP:
“How can it be Stand Your Ground?” said Ford, a longtime homicide investigator who on his off-day on Monday plans to attend a rally in the Trayvon case in Sanford with his two teenage sons. “It’s on [surveillance] video! You can see him stabbing the victim . . .”
So, I believe my analogy stands: “Your honor, he came at me waving his arms and yelling. I believed myself to be in imminent danger and took steps to protect myself…”
Are you saying that no legitimate case of self defence can ever result in someone being being stabbed? Or that no legitimate case of self defence can ever be caught on video?
Because if you aren’t claiming either of those things, this makes no sense at all. “How can it be self defence? It’s on video! You can see him stabbing the victim!”
“Yes, and…? He already told us that he stabbed his attacker in front of a news crew. How does this establish that it wasn’t self defence?”
So you believe that somebody waving their arms constitutes a use of force do you?
The situations you cite are all possible, and common sense would indicate that a person did not have an opportunity to retreat. But there are also cases where common sense indicates that person does have an opportunity to retreat. And I assure you I don’t have some Hollywood sense of what a real life defense situation is.
As I said (pretty clearly, I thought) my objection is to the police setting themselves up as arbiters of fact in a case where a young man has been shot. The circumstances create an issue of fact (was the shot fired in self-defense or not) which should be tried before a jury under our system of justice.
The police did not witness the shooting. They are simply taking the shooter’s statement at face value.
In other words, the police abused their discretion in this case.
But your contention was that in a situation where two people are standing outside, one has a gun and the other doesn’t, there is nothing preventing the one with a gun from retreating.
That contention is utterly and completely wonrg and base don a Hollywood vision of self defence situations.
It is not in any way common sense to claim, as you did, that where two people are standing outside, one has a gun and the other doesn’t, there is nothing preventing the one with a gun from retreating.
And yet you claimed that where two people are standing outside, one has a gun and the other doesn’t, there is nothing preventing the one with a gun from retreating.
So police should have discretion to decide who to arrest unless a young man has been shot? In that scenario they must always arrest, the prosecutor also must lose his discretion on whether or not to prosecute, and a case, no matter how weak, must be presented to a jury?
You decided to interpret that the people are standing 6 feet apart and one was attacked by the other. Those are your details, not mine. I agreed that was a case where common sense indicates a reasonable circumstance for defense. But not all cases as I described did. If you want to indicate that there are more precise circumstances to consider fine. But that does not mean that all such circumstances allow this law to apply.
BTW: I strenuously object to requirement to retreat laws. They cause the situation you described where a person has to make a decision to flee that may leave him/her in danger. But the problem I find in the way this law seems to be intrepreted by some is that it allows you to murder a person in cold blood whenever there are no witnesses. If you do not take into account the circumstances to determine whether there was an opportunity to retreat, before it is too late, then it is legalizing murder.
Police do have discretion. That is a simple matter of fact. I believe they have abused their discretion in this case, and I believe the DA should remedy that by seeking an indictment. Clear enough? (And this, by the way, is not a weak case. Are you familiar with the facts?)
In many States I don’t actually think it’d be a crime for Garcia to have been chasing someone down to forcibly detain them under suspicion that the person had committed a crime. In cases of felony almost all 50 States allow me as a citizen to forcibly detain (“arrest”) someone, misdemeanors it’s more of a variable thing and I’d advise people look into local law.
My understanding is the key difference is that if I arrest someone because I feel I have probable cause and I am a police officer and a judge later says I didn’t have probable cause to arrest I’m not personally civilly liable. If I’m a private citizen who effects a citizen’s arrest and it is later found that I didn’t have probable cause I believe in many States I can be sued for my mistaken interpretation of the law.
Obviously the best reason not to effect a citizen’s arrest in most circumstances is as a private citizen you lack many of the resources of a police officer so put yourself in great physical harm. Still, I’d like to think in fantastical scenarios like “citizen sees Ted Bundy fleeing from murder scene” there might be some citizens who recognize a higher duty to society in trying to stop the most heinous of criminals from fleeing on to certainly commit future crimes.
How do you define “abuse their discretion?” It is plain fact a district attorney is much more of an expert on the law than a police officer (who is some level of expert on certain aspects of the law due to their job responsibilities, while not expert to the degree of a lawyer working for a prosecutor’s office), what this means is that many situations a district attorney will identify a crime through their arcane understanding of statute and case law that a police officer fails to identify. So we can’t say in any case where police don’t bring charges but the DA does that the police abused their discretion.
What is the defining element in police abusing their arrest discretion?
Case by case basis. That’s the way abuse of discretion cases are always decided.
In this case, we have a young man lying dead on the ground from a gunshot wound. We know that the shooter had been pursuing him, and that he held a grudge of some kind. (“They always get away,” he said to the 911 operator.) We know that the young man was armed with nothing more than a can of tea and a bag of chips. We know (or the police would have known, if they had actually investigated) that the young man had been talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone a minute before he was shot, and told her that someone was following him.
Under those circumstances there is a question of fact which must be decided: did the shooter act in self defense? The police did not witness the shooting. It is properly the purview of a jury to decide whether this is self-defense.
Are you suggesting that the police should always just take the shooter’s word for what happened?
These are the type of cases where people get in serious trouble for attempting a citizen’s arrest, armed or not. That, and use of a gun in locations with very strong gun control laws such as New York city.
So, in the one case, the report of the INVESTIGATING OFFICER is a total non sequitur, but in the other case, the decision of the INVESTIGATING OFFICER not to arrest is just hunky dory?
And, FWIW, no, I don’t really think that’s an attack, but apparently there’s at least one judge in Miami that I might take my chances with…
Are you being disingenuous about the Garcia case? Again, here is what the article says, and this is all that has been presented so far. I am not, myself, privy to the actual evidence:
[QUOTE=Miami Herald]
Garcia grabbed a large knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta for at least a block. The incident was caught on tape and showed that Garcia stabbed Roteta to death. At the time Roteta was carrying a bag with stolen radios “but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.”
[/QUOTE]
There is a lot left out. How much was caught on tape, the entire chase, just the last moment of stabbing, was enough shown on the tape as to whether Roteta actually turned and tried to fight or anything? It is apparently a fact that Roteta had no useful weapon, only a bag of stolen radios. Maybe he flung the bag at Garcia; none of us knows these details.
Other missing details include the scope of the wounds. Did Garcia get “lucky” and his first thrust was fatal? Or did he stab again and again.
Blake, you seem to be saying that there is no problem with this application of the law. I don’t think you can make that statement with the evidence available. If instead you are only saying that others are jumping to conclusions, then I wonder that you would have said these things:
[QUOTE=Blake]
Are you saying that Garcia was engged in unlwaful activity by following someone down a public street?
Or that Garcia was not attacked while following someone down a public street?
Because unless you dispute one of the above points, it seems clear that he could not be charged under the law as written.
[/QUOTE]
The story says he was chasing with a knife, not following. That may be journalistic embroidery. Neither of us knows that.
The story also does not say whether Roteta turned and fought or whether Garcia just caught up to him and stabbed him in the back. For you to then say that “he could not be charged” means that the assumption of the law would be that Garcia was attacked, evidence or not. That doesn’t seem like a very good legal framework.
[QUOTE=Blake]
If you can establish that there was no threat and that he never claimed to have been threatened, that kind of settles the issue. So far nobody has been able to do so. Lots of claims that there was no threat, but no actual evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe this is the critical question. Who has burden of proof in a case like this? Does the state have to prove that there was no attack by Roteta? Or does Garcia have to prove that there was?
In a normal self-defense case, there has to be some evidence that there was an attack. How is this different?
Roddy
Maybe you misread the story. Roteta stole Garcia’s radio but he never attacked Garcia or anyone else. Roteta was running away from Garcia and Garcia was chasing him with a knife. Then Garcia caught Roteta and stabbed him.