Skip to main content

View Diary: Michael Dunn's Defense Did Invoke "Stand Your Ground" (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know if (0+ / 0-)

    legitimate self-defense slayings exceed or fall short of the reported tally, but I have no problem demanding even the morally inculpable prove at least by preponderance of evidence the substance of their defense.  And if that means someone who would be completely innocent under today's law loses their freedom, so be it.  It's the price we pay for a less bloody society, and a price we can afford with judicious prison and criminal justice reform.

    •  It's late... (5+ / 0-)

      perhaps I'm not reading your comment correctly.

      I'm incapable of coming to a conclusion other than:

      If you're so-called "innocent", under current laws?
      Even-if you're morally inculpable, and you kill or injure someone?  
      You're not beyond reproach.
      "Do unto others..."
      "Turn the other cheek."

      Society, in order to be less violent, less bloody, must punish all who resort to violence.
      Regardless of currently legal circumstances.
      That proof of threat, must include proof of serious harm and/or death.

      In law enforcement, we called this "first blood" that you needed to be cut, or beaten nearly unconscious before you could draw your weapon on an assailant, not in-possession of a firearm.
      It was a concept well known to certain criminal elements, which cost police officer lives.

      As I said at the beginning, it may just be my misread, due to the hour.

      •  No, you're not misreading me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I really believe that if someone kills another, and he cannot by a preponderance of evidence show it was self-defense, he should be found guilty.  The measure by which he fulfills is burden is subject to debate.  Personally, I believe if the state shows that the defendant did not adhere to a rigorous standard of use of force we'd ideally expect out of law enforcement, then the state should prevail.

        It's not quite "guilty until proven innocent," but it places a serious burden of persuasion on the defendant.  Think Ohio on steroids.

        •  so the situation is he said she said, he's dead, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview, Kasoru, 43north, KVoimakas

          she says he was attacking her but there is no concrete proof of anything either way.

          Are you actually saying that in this situation she should face charges?

          What if he has a record?
          What if the dirt is scuffled a bit like maybe there might have been a struggle but nothing concrete?
          What if she's a little scuffed up?

          What if...

          Where is your line that the presumption of innocence goes away and a person has to prove their innocence?

          What is the line we abandon our system of jurisprudence over and how many other laws should we extend it to?

           because once that wall is breached, there's just too many way to save the children to not make a person prove they didn't do whatever you are accusing them of......

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:54:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

            the presumption of innocence doesn't go away if the defendant doesn't stipulate to the slaying, but a self-defense claim does require that much admission.  Other affirmative defense--say, an insanity defense--do place a burden of persuasion on the defendant.  So what's wrong with doing as Ohio does and including justifiable use of force in that category?  If you have to prove that you were legally incapable of being held responsible for your actions by mental defect, you should have to prove that you were legally justified in killing another human being when you were in your right mind.

        •  If we * only * have to live-up to the Police (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          standard of conduct?

          I don't see the problem.

          Thank you for clarification.  Any degree of snark detected is at the situation, not your reply.

          •  "we'd *ideally* expect out of law enforcement" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Half of justifiable homicides reported in the UCR Supplementary are at the hand of law enforcement; I have no doubt that we're falling short holding the police to account.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site