Family says fatal shooting case shows ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t work for Black men

Not so cut and dried, the other witnesses contradict his story, this sounds like road rage.

 

Self defense is a valid defense in ALL states. It's not what this thread is about.

Quote the law where it says that, please.

I'll save you and me some time: it doesn't! Obviously. Because what you say doesn't even make sense.

 

So after reviewing this whole debacle it's safe to say the family of the guy who murdered the person in the truck lied. It's not the first or last time some criminal loon will commit a felony and have their family swear it was racism when that is obviously not the case. Another case of crying racism that will lead to that sentiment falling on increasingly deaf ears.

Some people just can't behave.

 

No change in anything I said. You can't reasonably believe that some kids driving are a threat. But you might reasonably believe that they are if they appear to be drinking and are cutting you off and screaming at you.

You might. But it tends to work better if you're white.

 

No! Self defense is a valid argument in ANY state. Completely different laws.

 

Stand your ground laws are all about self defense. If you believe otherwise feel free to provide case law stating otherwise. NOT your opinion. FACTUAL LEGAL case law.

 

No reasonable person is going to believe that. Your attempt to race bait is being ignored.

 

You said it was what the LAW SAID.
Its not what the law says.

 

Even taking his story at face value, he missed.
He wasn't authorized to shoot passengers who only offered racial slurs.
He would have been authorized to shoot the driver. He didn't shoot the driver, he missed and struck a passenger.
Even in a justified shoot you are not protected if you hit a bystander.

 

So you want me to "prove" that stand your ground is NOT self defense. Just so you know, we all understand that a person has run out of arguments when their position is based on the requirement of another to prove a negative.

On the same token, self-defense, in common law, requires the defendant to prove he acted as any "reasonable person" would. Stand your ground shifts the burden requiring a prosecutor to prove a negative.

Because requiring proof of a negative is absurd! Which, as your demand demonstrates, you don't realize.

Point is, completely different things.... And what I'm talking about is "stand your ground" ONLY.

 

Its pretty easy actually. You just make the argument to the jury that a reasonable person would not have done that, and if the jury accepts that argument that's how it works.
If they don't, then the jury considers you to have acted reasonably, and you walk.
Real straightforward.

 

You would need to quote what I said and repeat your question in the same post. So we know what the hell you're talking about

 

Are you seriously claiming you don't know what you said yesterday?

Are you feeling alright? Been to the doctor recently?

 

Yep! So the prosecutor is required to prove a negative. Which is obvious nonsense. And leaves the jury the task of making a judgement call based on anything other than facts. Before the law was passed hiere in Florida, opponents warned that this judgement call would often be made based on the skin color of the person accused. The study the OP references indicates that they were likely right.

It IS very easy to understand. And you have made my point!

 

No. I'm saying YOU don't know what I said yesterday.

 

The prosecutor is required to prove the belief if held or not would be unreasonable.
He's not required to prove the person didn't believe. He's required to show that belief they express as their justification was unreasonable as applied to the victim.

As with literally everything legal I've seen you comment on you are wildly incorrect in how it works.

 

I just quoted what you said yesterday. Why do you insist on this absurdity?

 

i.e., a negative argument.

In common law, the person who uses the self-defense argument has to prove that the justification was reasonable.

i.e., an affirmative argument.

You keep making my case.

Self defense has worked for centuries in just about any civilized nation that follows rule of law. Stand your ground is illogical nonsense that shifts the burden to the prosecutor to prove a negative, leaving the jury to make a decsion based on anything BUT facts and objective evidence, and has led to more convictions for black people than for white people.

 

Quote what your asking your question about AND ask your question. That's how this works. It shouldn't be THIS difficult.

 

The defendant will explain why they thought they were being reasonable, or refuse to testify as is their right.
The prosecution will adduce evidence by testimony of experts and eye witnesses so they can make the argument that a person acting reasonably would not have taken that course of action, and therefore any belief the defendant had was unreasonable. IF the jury agrees with him, they will find the defendant guilty. If they disagree, they will find the defendant not guilty.

Again: You're not understanding that when you PROVE something in court, you prove it to the jury's satisfaction according to the instruction given. Reasonableness is an assessment the jury makes based on the evidence.

 

There, now will you cease with this absurdity?

 

That's right. You don't NEED to testify. It's the prosecutor's burden to prove a negative.

I don't know if you realize how again and again you keep making my case.

 

All of that just to make THAT absurd question?

Geeez!

 

stand your ground refers to self-defense.

quote where the law says what exactly?

it doesn't what what doesn't what are you talking about?

stand your ground is a euphemism before self-defense like duty to fleet and he's only really ever

Self-defense is an affirmative defense.

So are you saying this wasn't self defense this guy just murdered this kid? Or does stand your ground just give me the right to shoot and kill anyone I want?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...k-for-black-men.603973/page-6#post-1073742439