Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[TDPerk]

" That is Zimmerman's actions, profiling, following Martin (though not illegal in and of themselves), therefore arguably provoking the violent encounter. That is at fault for causing the situation."

Absolutely wrong both as a matter of ethics and as a matter of law. It is not possible as a matter of law to provoke a violent encounter by doing what you have a right to do, it is solely the responsibility of the other party--even if they're "oppressed" blacks--not to respond violently to someone acting within their rights.

As a matter of right and wrong, Zimmerman was taking personal responsibility for the safety of himself and his community, and he observed someone acting suspiciously, and properly profiled them to be acting suspiciously--nothing to do with is skin color. Wandering around in the rain looking closely over and over again into multiple dwellings as Martin was doing in the rain is quite suspicious.

Trayvon Martin is solely at fault for his being dead, he had no cause to assault George Zimmerman--that is the only and sole conclusion any existing evidence supports.

[williatw]

" That is Zimmerman's actions, profiling, following Martin (though not illegal in and of themselves), therefore arguably provoking the violent encounter. That is at fault for causing the situation."

Absolutely wrong both as a matter of ethics and as a matter of law. It is not possible as a matter of law to provoke a violent encounter by doing what you have a right to do, it is solely the responsibility of the other party--even if they're "oppressed" blacks--not to respond violently to someone acting within their rights.

Self-defense in most states is an "affirmative defense", that is you must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your use of deadly force was a response to your honest fear that it was unavoidable to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others. And that you were not at fault for provoking the violent encounter leading to the use of deadly force. "At fault" in this context does not necessarily mean your actions were illegal as such, what constitutes "provoked" would be up the court to decide.

http://www.adamengel.net/appealsblog/20 ... situation/

The Defendant must establish that the other party was the aggressor and that the Defendant did not himself provoke and cause the injury. The defense of self-defense is not available to the person who starts a fight unless, in good faith, he withdraws from the contest and informs the other party of his withdrawal, or by words or acts reasonably indicates that he has withdrawn and is no longer participating in the fight.

A Defendant is not in a position to claim self-defense if he sought trouble and armed with a dangerous weapon, he provoked a fight or renewed a fight that had broken off and did not attempt to avoid it or leave the scene of the trouble.


Now what I am quoting is Ohio law, my understanding is under Florida law it is not an affirmative defense, but I may be mistaken.
.

[GIThruster]

Trayvon Martin is solely at fault for his being dead, he had no cause to assault George Zimmerman--that is the only and sole conclusion any existing evidence supports.

Roger that.

If some wants to climb atop me and beat my head into the ground, for whatever reason; I'll kill him. And I'll be right to do so.

There are several clueless, misbegotten cultures now that want to pretend individuals have no right to protect themselves.

frick that nonsense.

There is no reason to believe that the State will protect individual citizens. Individuals need to observe and accept that their protection is always in their own hands.

The crazy concept that the State protects the individual, has lasted through decades and centuries in eastern societies.

Disarm the populace! cried China and Japan. The populace obiously responded with VIOLENCE.

[williatw]

Trayvon Martin is solely at fault for his being dead, he had no cause to assault George Zimmerman--that is the only and sole conclusion any existing evidence supports.

Roger that.

If some wants to climb atop me and beat my head into the ground, for whatever reason; I'll kill him. And I'll be right to do so.

My understanding is you are correct if at that moment you shoot the person, they are on top of you attempting to beat you to death, then under the law, since you can't retreat or disengage, theoretically it defaults to self-defense, even if you arguably provoked the encounter. Though I would love to see the number of cases where a defendant perceived as being at fault for provoking the encounter, still manages to plead self-defense successfully, the theory of how the law is supposed to work notwithstanding.

[GIThruster]

My understanding is you are correct if at that moment you shoot the person, they are on top of you attempting to beat you to death, then under the law, since you can't retreat or disengage, theoretically it defaults to self-defense.

Em. . . Yup.

[williatw]

In Mexico, self-defense groups battle a cartel


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the ... story.html

TEPALCATEPEC, Mexico — An audacious band of citizen militias battling a brutal drug cartel in the hills of central Mexico is becoming increasingly well-armed and coordinated in an attempt to end years of violence, extortion and humiliation.

What began as a few scattered self-defense groups has spread in recent months to dozens of towns across Michoacan, a volatile state gripped by the cultlike Knights Templar, a drug gang known for taxing locals on everything from cows to tortillas and executing those who do not comply.
The army deployed to the area in May, but the soldiers are mostly manning checkpoints. Instead, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is facing the awkward fact that a group of scrappy locals appears to be chasing the gangsters away, something that federal security forces have not managed in a decade.

They include a 63-year-old pot-bellied farmer mindful that he can run only 30 yards; a skinny 23-year-old raised in Oregon who said he had never used a gun before; and a man who wears a metal bowl stuffed with newspaper as a helmet. A 47-year-old bureaucrat, who is sure that she will be killed if the gang retakes her town, said of her decision to join the cause: “I may live one year or 15, but I will live free.”

[TDPerk]

"Self-defense in most states is an "affirmative defense", that is you must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your use of deadly force was a response to your honest fear that it was
unavoidable to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others. And that you were not at fault for provoking the violent encounter leading to the use of deadly force."

Should I take your having cited commonplace unjust law, as your endorsing the injustice those laws represent? The state should always be in the position of proving you have committed a crime, and never you that you have not.

You also haven't begun to make the case that acting within your rights can reasonably provoke someone--as opposed to unreasonably provoke someone--into attacking you.

[williatw]

"Self-defense in most states is an "affirmative defense", that is you must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your use of deadly force was a response to your honest fear that it was
unavoidable to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others. And that you were not at fault for provoking the violent encounter leading to the use of deadly force."

Should I take your having cited commonplace unjust law, as your endorsing the injustice those laws represent? The state should always be in the position of proving you have committed a crime, and never you that you have not.

You also haven't begun to make the case that acting within your rights can reasonably provoke someone--as opposed to unreasonably provoke someone--into attacking you.

Please don't misunderstand me...I do not endorse those particular laws, just trying to state how it works to the best of my understanding. I personally believe in stand your ground laws for instance. Personally I don't agree with the duty to retreat, or at fault for having caused the situation (unless said "fault" are actual illegal actions on your part), but the laws we all have to live under often say otherwise. Ohio has a more limited version of SYG called the "Castle Doctrine", (though we are in the process of hopefully changing it SYG). It says you don't have a duty to retreat in your home, car, or business, anywhere else you still do. Morally I think requiring a law abiding citizen acting lawfully to retreat anywhere he has a legal right to be is wrong, but laws in many states don't agree with me.

[GIThruster]

"Self-defense in most states is an "affirmative defense", that is you must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your use of deadly force was a response to your honest fear that it was unavoidable to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others. And that you were not at fault for provoking the violent encounter leading to the use of deadly force."

All states use an affirmative defense. Affirmative defense simply means that you affirm "yes I shot him" and then show how that is a righteous shooting. States differ as to what is a righteous shooting. States with the castle doctrine or stand your ground, do not require you to retreat or try to retreat before using lethal force. In states like Oregon, you can use lethal force in protection of personal property. You can for instance, shoot someone in the back who is fleeing with your goods. You would in that case still use an affirmative defense, meaning you affirm you shot the guy but then defend that action by saying he was stealing your bicycle, horse, etc.

In all cases of affirmative defense, the issue is indeed turned around and you are proving your innocence by first affirming the charge (you killed this man) and then saying how that is justified under the law of that state.

I've seen some statistical analysis several times over the years and certainly it is true, the more permissive gun laws are, the less crime. The more restrictive gun laws are, such as in many major cities; the more violent crime.

[TDPerk]

"All states use an affirmative defense."

You are flat wrong.

Some states still use the archaic and inherently unjust "affirmative defense". With the "stand your ground" law which ended up not coming into the Zimmerman trial, Florida adopted the proper attitude that the state must have some evidence you have not defended yourself justly, there must be some evidence of an unlawful homicide, before you are prosecuted.

This is the primary reason the trial of George Zimmerman was in and of itself such a grotesque miscarriage of justice. The police had already released him without charge when they correctly evaluated there was no evidence he had done anything wrong.

[williatw]

With the "stand your ground" law which ended up not coming into the Zimmerman trial, Florida adopted the proper attitude that the state must have some evidence you have not defended yourself justly, there must be some evidence of an unlawful homicide, before you are prosecuted.

This is the primary reason the trial of George Zimmerman was in and of itself such a grotesque miscarriage of justice. The police had already released him without charge when they correctly evaluated there was no evidence he had done anything wrong.

I believe they have to have evidence of a crime at a shooting where you claim self-defense in Florida in order to charge you yes. I agree that is how it should be everywhere but sad to say it is not. In addition this is where I think "at fault for having caused the situation" comes into play in another way. The arguments from Obama, Holder, Sharpton, etc... about SYG(and probably concealed carry itself) seem to go something like this: SYG they seem to be saying creates an atmosphere where "tragedies" like this are more likely to happen. Why? well because it causes someone like Zimmerman to have a "cowboy" or "vigilante" like mentality of "shoot 1st ask questions later" "encouraged" by SYG. Therefore SYG is at fault for causing this "atmosphere" and therefore should be repealed, regardless of what the SYG statute actually says & the fact that it barely came up in this case (the jury instructions) is beside the point. At fault for having caused the situation is a very powerful prosecutorial (& political rhetorical) tool, which I am even more mistrustful of than the more commonly cited duty to retreat.

[GIThruster]

I'm not sure why we're arguing since we all seem to agree. Just noting however, you do not understand what you're writing about, Perky. An "Affirmative Defense" is a type of defense used in all 50 states, where you affirm that you were responsible for what would be a crime, like killing someone; but then explain that it was a legally defensible action. Zimmerman affirmed he killed Trevon, but defended that action on grounds of self defense.

You are completely clueless concerning the backwardness of the situation. It is not an antiquated or outdated law or anything of the type. It is the natural consequence of owning that you did indeed perform what is normally a crime--like killing someone. If you affirm that you killed someone then your defense must be that this was a justifiable action based on the laws of that state. Contrast "Affirmative Defense" against a "Negating Defense" which is to say you did not do the deed at all. If Zimmerman had used a Negating Defense, he would have claimed not to be the shooter.

So just saying, you're using a term you don't understand. Look it up over at wiki or something.

[williatw]

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'
Ronald Noble Asks If Nairobi Massacre Would've Ended Sooner in Pro-Gun States

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive ... d=20637341



Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

..."Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."

"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'"

[Schneibster]

Yes, let's make sure everyone has a gun, there'll be lots less murders that way.

/sarcasm

So does "Oklahoma style" mean "without liability insurance?"

[Diogenes]

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'
Ronald Noble Asks If Nairobi Massacre Would've Ended Sooner in Pro-Gun States

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive ... d=20637341



Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called "soft targets" are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

..."Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."

"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'"

It makes you wonder if people might not eventually catch on or something.