Forum: Story Recommendations

Oh you poor child. You are reading words and meaning to fit your preconceptions and world view. Bless your heart.

I did not write nor imply what your perception is.

Ok... I omitted a couple words. Should be... Slightly rearranged...

"Seems to me that in late 2023 the prosecutors in the society I live inside here in the USA are shying away from charging severe legal consequences for defensive violence against aggressors."

"Seems to me that in late 2023 the prosecutors in the society I live inside here in the USA are shying away from charging severe legal consequences for defensive violence against aggressors."

The problem is that "shying away from" carries a negative connotation and the way you are wording this implies that you disapprove of this trend.

Ok. I mis-typed and poorly expressed my intention and thoughts.

Yes, you are correct.

But my perception is that a larger percentage of the nation is moving toward defense is not only acceptable, but mostly unprosecuted, no need for expensive lawyer defense. Simply reviewed and not charged. Court dates and all that expensive bullshit.

And that is the point of these two tales. Protect yourself, loved ones and possessions. No bad consequences will accrue to you.

Again, it is not 2023 reality everywhere. But many regions. And I applaud that defense is a good reality.

But my perception is that a larger percentage of the nation is moving toward defense is not only acceptable, but mostly unprosecuted, no need for expensive lawyer defense. Simply reviewed and not charged. Court dates and all that expensive bullshit.

In more rational parts of the country, the pendulum is swinging that way - but even in those places, you always have to watch out for the DA who is out to make a name for themselves by "getting convictions".

No matter where you are, shut up and ask for a lawyer.

And that is the point of these two tales. Protect yourself, loved ones and possessions. No bad consequences will accrue to you.

I think you would find it is more a case that there is more media attention being given to self-defense/defense of others cases lately rather than an increase in DA's who decide not to pursue charges. Most laws have had caveats for self-defense since they were first drafted. Which makes prosecution rather pointless.

Of course "stand your ground laws" with respect to firearms are a relatively new thing, but also largely a response to DA prosecution teams deciding they wanted to pursue cases of "excessive force" that would have previously been left alone(read: they default to interpreting defensive use of firearms and resultant wounding/killing of the criminal to be "disproportionate to the threat"). So it was essentially a return to status quote in most cases... Although it had some unintended consequences with respect to gang violence in particular.

As to being "without consequence" that's another matter. They might have escaped criminal charges, but it doesn't immunize private citizens from civil liability law suits brought forth by the (estate of the) person who was injured/killed.

Well for one you have states with so-called "Stand your ground" laws

For people who don't understand what "stand your ground" laws are and what they do, which may or may not include ystokes.

1. Today, there are 11 states with an explicit duty to retreat before resorting to self defense. There used to be many more states with a duty to retreat.

2. No duty to retreat state has ever required that a person retreat from their own home (with a few states having an exception to this for cases where the aggressor is a co-occupant). This is referred to as the "castle doctrine".

3. Even duty to retreat states recognize that retreat is not always possible and that self defense outside the home can be justified.

4. DC and Wisconsin take a middle ground between duty to retreat and stand your ground.

5. Stand your ground laws are an explicit statement that a person has no duty to retreat from any place they have a legal right to be. Beyond nullifying a duty to retreat, these laws do not alter the standard requirements for self defense.

So what are the basic requirements for self defense?

This may be a bit simplified, but:

1. You can not be the aggressor.

2. You must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another (yes, you can defend someone else).

3. The threat must be imminent.

For a more complete view, see https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

The US media will blame "stand your ground" laws in states that have one in cases even in cases where it is clear that the stand your ground law either doesn't apply or doesn't make a difference.

Take the case of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Early on, the media tried to portray this as a "stand your ground issue" even though:

1. Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state.

2. Evidence that in fact Kyle tried to retreat before he shot anyone.

Neither an explicit duty to retreat, not stand your ground would have had any effect on the outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

where it is best if you kill the other person so only your side is heard.

Actually, it can be more important to make sure your side is the only one heard in duty to retreat states.

Actually, it can be more important to make sure your side is the only one heard in duty to retreat states.

Not really. So lets look at your requirements to see if are better in a SYG state. The George Zimmerman case is a perfect example of of misuse of the law.

Under California self-defense laws, you generally have the right to "stand your ground" and defend yourself and others without retreating. There is no state law statute that explicitly lays this out. Instead, case law and jury instructions recognize your right to use force in self-defense without first trying to escape or run away (stand your ground), even if outside the home.
So what are the basic requirements for self defense?

This may be a bit simplified, but:

1. You can not be the aggressor.

If the other person is dead who but you is to say who was the aggressor.
Though California does not have a stand your ground statute, the state appellate cases have held that there is no duty to retreat before using force in public.

2. You must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another (yes, you can defend someone else).

Again it helps if the other person is dead.
3. The threat must be imminent.
At least that is what you shoud claim.

So lets look at your requirements to see if are better in a SYG state. The George Zimmerman case is a perfect example of of misuse of the law.

No it wasn't. Florida's SYG law was not a factor in the George Zimmerman trial.

ETA:
https://www.nicholstucker.com/maine-defender/stand-your-ground/

Like racism, stand your ground really had nothing to do with the actual trial. From the time that Mr. Martin, unprovoked, punched Mr. Zimmerman in the nose, knocked him down, straddled him and began "punching him MMA-style", Mr. Zimmerman had no to opportunity to retreat. The "duty" to retreat never factually entered into the equation.

Not really. So lets look at your requirements to see if are better in a SYG state.

Not one thing you've said points out anything that would be different between a SYG state and a duty to retreat state.

Here is the big difference: You are far more likely to get prosecuted in a duty to retreat state.

When would having no one to contradict your story be most important? At trial.

If the other person is dead who but you is to say who was the aggressor.

Yes, now, let's move away from the theory and look at how the real world works. And I'm saying this after spending twelve years with law enforcement.

People seem to believe that whatever you do in self-defense is not a crime. That's wrong from the start. If you hit someone in the face, that's assault. If you kill someone, that's murder. Both are criminal acts. Doing either of those things in self-defense is just a justification for the criminal act you committed. And here's where the real problem lies.

If we get called to a crime scene (and if there's a body involved, it is a crime scene), we will treat you as a suspected murderer. And, believe it or not, the burden of proof now lies with you.

You may say something like "Innocent until proven guilty". But, no. A person has been killed, that's the crime we're investigating. If you claim self-defense, you admitted to committing the crime. So, unless there's at least some circumstantial evidence supporting your claim... you will be prosecuted for the crime.

Simple as that.

If you kill someone, that's murder. Both are criminal acts. Doing either of those things in self-defense is just a justification for the criminal act you committed. And here's where the real problem lies.

That's incorrect. It's a homicide, but not murder.

Sure. We will still treat it as a murder, though, until we're told otherwise...

Thanks. What I meant to write was "If you even try to hit someone in the face...", but my thoughts were faster than my fingers again.

As a civil wrong (tort) the touching is called battery and the threat is the assault, but under the model penal code (and most state statutes) the touching is called assault.

As for Kyle Rittenhouse, lets see, he was under age to own a AR 15

But not under age to possess it under Wisconsin law. The judge dismissed that charge because the prosecutor was misreading the law.

He lived in Illinois but felt to take a illegal gun to another state.

The gun wasn't illegal in Wisconsin and it was never in Illinois.

2 people would still be alive if he followed the law.

He did follow the law, which is why he was acquitted.

Kyle's father and Grandparents live in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Kyle had a job in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin (in Kenosha County).
The gun was purchased in Wisconsin and kept at the home of a family friend in Kenosha.

well since he was acquitted he must not have broken any laws..

and 2 people would be alive today if they didn't feel the need to follow him, attack him physically, (iirc 1 guy was hitting him with a skateboard), and threaten him (did not another guy have a gun in his hand when confronting kyle?) WHEN HE WAS LEAVING THE AREA!

did not another guy have a gun in his hand when confronting kyle?

The one who had a gun was only shot in the arm. He lived.

He was supposed to be the prosecutor's star witness and basically sank the case when he admitted on the stand that he pointed his gun at Kyle before Kyle shot him.