I would point out that if you really think your life is in danger, you can still shoot your adversary, after all its better to be tried for murder than to be dead. But there should be a law in place, that make you consider the negative consequences of taking a life on the chance that you are wrong.
This doesn’t apply to the Dunn case – the testimony plus the evidence more than suggested it. The jury found that it proved the guilty result beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you really think you life is in danger, what do you mean by being wrong? The test for whether you can use lethal force in self defence isn’t that you need to actually be in danger, it’s that you really believe you are, and that a reasonable person in your situation would also believe that.
Mistakenly thinking you are in danger, and acting upon that mistake, should not be a crime - even if that action causes the death of another - unless that mistake is unreasonable. You also need to consider that, if you believe you’re imminently going to die or be seriously injured, there’s no time for quiet reflection, the decision to act will need to be fast if not instant.
The standard should be, and is in many places, that someone is not guilty of murder unless no-one in their position could reasonably have felt in fear of imminent death or serious injury. Or, if one can prove that the killer did not, in fact, feel that fear.
So no, there should not be a law that attempts to stop or slow down someone from defending themselves if they feel in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Such as law would, in my opinion, be fundamentally immoral, as it would deny a person the right to protect their own life.
Not originally. They had to go and get another jury that would find that.
Yes. This is a part of our justice system – if a jury can’t agree on a verdict, then they do it again.
I am aware that the justice system makes a mockery of reasonable doubt on many occasions, that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
See, I’m more of the mind that if you’re going to point a gun at another human being, shoot and potentially kill them, you should be more sure than you’ve ever been about anything in your life that you have no other option, otherwise you don’t fucking do it. Whether you can make that decision in a split second or not is your concern.
I am not a huge fan of the <BANG> “whoopsie!” philosophy that you appear to favor. Carrying a firearm doesn’t mean your first resort in any conflict is to shoot the other guy. Particularly not in cases like Zimmerman’s and Dunn’s, where the shooter provoked or exacerbated the conflict, then “settled” it with his gun.
On the contrary, our system greatly strengthens the concept of “reasonable doubt” (in my view). Your idea, in my view, greatly weakens the concept of “reasonable doubt” and the justice system in general. As the example of my “party invitation homicide” hypothetical demonstrates, it would be trivially easy to get away with murder under your system.
“Reasonable doubt” is confirmed (or “no reasonable doubt” is confirmed) by 12 of the defendant’s peers agreeing. If they don’t agree, then “reasonable doubt” is neither confirmed nor denied, and we repeat the process. This way, one juror (in either direction), or two jurors, or six jurors, cannot throw a boot into the wheels of justice permanently. It also means that one person, or two, or six, if they feel strongly enough, can at least temporarily prevent what they believe is an injustice – and force both sides to make their arguments again for a new group of 12 peers.
Precisely this. My main goal with regard to any legislation about this sort of thing is to have as few innocent people dead as possible. Truth be told I would rather have a innocent self defender tried for murder than an innocent person end up dead. If there are no consequences for misjudging your degree of danger, you might as well play it safe and shoot at the first hint of concern. I would feel a lot less safe living in a society where the best action for someone who felt nervous about me was to shoot me down, than I would in a society where on the off chance that my life really was in danger, killing the aggressor would lead to my prosecution.
This is not even considering the danger that those who might want to shoot me regardless of my perceived danger to them with the knowledge that they could claim they felt threatened, (like it seems Dunn likely did).
Here is the additional info, via Newsmax:
Same story from a more reputable source. (No offense, Bricker but I don’t trust Newsmax.)
I wonder what documents the complainant gave that made it impossible to proceed.
Regards,
Shodan
What is the over/under on when Zimmerman is back in police custody?
Zimmerman was arrested earlier this month after his ex-girlfriend told police officers he had thrown a wine bottle at her. She later recanted her story.
Recanted? Must have been some confusion. Touriga wines should be decanted, not recanted.
Fair enough. She could be a lying liar. We don’t know.
I still don’t want him on my bowling team.
bup, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
He looks like the kind of guy who would be a real good bowler.
For such a chubby guy, he shows an amazing ability to dodge raindrops while running.
That ain’t rain.
Its the charge that the media ignores that will ultimately be Zimmerman’s undoing.
The Feds say no civil rights charges will be brought against Zimmerman.