That’s an odd argument. If you’re going to pass a law, you would want to know exactly what effect the law is going to have. To say, “We don’t have a crystal ball, so we don’t know what’s going to happen, but we’ll pass the law anyway”, makes no sense. You seem to want to downplay the possibility that killings that shouldn’t be justifiable might become justifiable under the new law. You want to brush it aside as “I don’t have a crystal ball”. Well I think it ought to be a matter of concern if it could result in murderers getting off.
Well I explained how it might do so, and I gave a possible scenario. And I haven’t really gotten a satisfactory answer other than “who knows?”
I don’t either; that’s not the issue. The issue is not whether there will be more homicides and assault, but whether the people guilty of those homicides or assaults are going to be punished, or whether they might escape punishment through a legal loophole.
Exactly my point - there should be an INVESTIGATION. In other words, the shooter’s state of mind and the particular circumstances of the shooting (or stabbing or whatever) are facts to be determined, not assumptions to be made blithely. But the vibe I’m getting in this thread is that some people think we should just automatically assume the shooter was in the right. I disagree with that.
No, and I don’t believe that in such a case, you would be required to flee. Despite what the proponents of this law would have us believe, I don’t see people being sent to prison by the hundreds for defending themselves against robbers. The problem is that it’s not always a clear-cut case of a random assailant attacking an innocent person on the street. Read the case-studies in that pamphlet that was linked to earlier. It’s not always clear-cut as to who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy. The law has to be able to address that.
You’re talking about the first part that I quoted. Read the second part that I quoted, please.
Sorry, the truth is we aren’t always prepared for the unintended consequences of laws passed. Did anybody really think that Prohibition would have resulted in drive by shootings, the rapid rise of organized crime, or widespread corruption of public officials? I don’t doubt that someone would try to use the law as part of a defense but that doesn’t mean I think they’d be successful.
I’m sure there will be an investigation. It’s just that if the shooter was justified in using deadly force, or force, he won’t get into trouble because he didn’t flee.
Which is why we have the police investigate these things. I don’t believe it’s going to give anyone free pass to shoot others in the street.
Marc
Passing a law that one thinks will have a certain effect, that ends up having a different effect, is quite a different thing from passing a law for which one admits that they don’t know the effect. Also, it’s odd that you would use an absolute miserable failure of a law such as Prohibition as your example of how these things should be done.
Well then we agree that such things are facts to be determined rather than assumptions to be made. At least we agree on one thing.
No, it’s not “just” that. Why did you ignore my request that you consider the other part of the law that I quoted?
That’s nice that you’re sure, but you haven’t really explained why the person in my scenario wouldn’t be able to use the law to get off. See, you can’t just say, “That would be wrong, so it wouldn’t happen.” Laws must be written so that wrong things don’t happen. You can’t just leave it up to dumb luck.
For the record I don’t think this law will result in more assaults or murders nor do I think it will result in people getting off scot free for murder or assaults. What I think it will do is prevent someone from getting in trouble because they didn’t attempt to flee. Will someone try to use this law as a defense? Maybe.
What other part are you talking about?
Nor have you given me any reason to suspect that this law will help people get away with murder. I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility because juries do make silly decisions from time to time.
Again, the term “presumption” in law does not mean that investigation is unneccessary. If it did, then the doctrine of “presumption of innocence” would preclude the need to bother with trials – everyone would simply be declared innocent and released.
Here’s why: Provoking a fight (as per the long-established “fighting words” doctrine) would, if proven, serve as a special circumstance that would rebut the normal presumption of self-defense. QED.
I believe you’re using that term incorrectly. “Fighting words doctrine” usually refers to a First Amendment issue (i.e. - can such speech be restricted) not a self-defense issue:
Do you have a cite for “fighting words doctrine” being a rebuttal to claims of self defense?
Your own cites show that the “fighting words doctrine” treats the utterer of the “fighting words” as the one who started the fight. That clearly negates any self-defense claim.
blowero- If I may ask, how did you access that quote? Online? I think that would be a great tool to have at my disposal also.
I only see links to buy the book(s). Thanks
I just googled “fighting words doctrine”. I apologize for not including the link, I intended to but somehow left it out. The Black’s Law Dictionary entry is quoted on a number of websites.
That’s vague. Which cites?
Cite for being the one who “started the fight” clearly negating any self-defense claim?
Oh, er, um, uh, just so we’re clear - When you say “starting the fight” negates any possible claim of self-defense, and I ask for a cite on that, I mean some sort of legal principle, not “the dictionary”. Maybe you should stay out of G.D. if you can’t handle it.
