USSC Out of Touch?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What if he was invited? Would you still then have the right to kill?

Cycloptichorn

Probably not unless there was a threat of a continued assault on your person.

That would be hard to prove in court.

0 Replies

The recent supreme court decision that surprised me was this one. The court ruled that a report a woman had with police officers prior to her death saying that her boyfriend was threatening to kill her was inadmissible after he really did kill her because he couldn't cross examine her. It seems like someone saying "he's trying to kill me" would be very relevant to a murder trial. The defendent could cross the police officer as to the victim's frame of mind or trustworthiness to try to refute the statement.

0 Replies

Say you are being robbed. Is there anything in your wallet you'd kill someone for?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Say you are being robbed. Is there anything in your wallet you'd kill someone for?

T
K
O

What is the perp threatening me with? Most likely a glimpse of my armament is going to send them running.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

The recent supreme court decision that surprised me was this one. The court ruled that a report a woman had with police officers prior to her death saying that her boyfriend was threatening to kill her was inadmissible after he really did kill her because he couldn't cross examine her. It seems like someone saying "he's trying to kill me" would be very relevant to a murder trial. The defendent could cross the police officer as to the victim's frame of mind or trustworthiness to try to refute the statement.

You've simplified the case here and in doing so left out the relevant parts of it.

The rules of hearsay evidence are pretty limited and the applicable issue in that case was that accused had take some action to prevent the person from appearing at the trial. You end up in a catch-22 here.

The trial court, in this case, decided that Giles killed her and as a result forefitted his right to confront his accuser. But under the Constitution, when one is accused of a crime they are presummed innocent until proven guilty.

The trial court allowed the statements on the basis that Giles killed his ex-girlfriend which prevented her from testifying in court. To get to that stage the trial court would have had to presume that Giles was already guilty at that point. IOW, they decided in advance that he was guilty in order to introduce evidence to attempt to prove that he was guilty.

If the trail court maintained that Giles was innocent until proven guilty then there is no evidence that he intended to prevent her from testifying and the exemption to the hearsay rule isn't applicable.

But there wasn't anything in the ruling that prevented the police from testifying that a statment had been filed... I don't know if they testified at the original trial or not. But the police can only testify that the statement was given to them, under what conditions and then what they did with it. The fact that a statement is given to the police isn't proof that what is in the statement is true so the police can't testify that that effect one way or the other.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.

I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

(I'm surprising myself a bit here, but... ) I disagree.

Certainly if someone only threatens to do you physical harm, you don't have the right to shoot them. But you have the right (and responsibility) to warn them how you will respond. And if they actually do attempt to hit you (do you physical harm), then I feel you have the right to defend yourself with any level of force you choose (including killing them if necessary). After all, you can die from being hit in the head, whether it be a fist a brick or a bat (this has happened to spectators at Massachusetts youth hockey games).

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Say you are being robbed. Is there anything in your wallet you'd kill someone for?

T
K
O

What is the perp threatening me with? Most likely a glimpse of my armament is going to send them running.

Maybe they'll run, or maybe they will immediately assess you as a threat and blow our brains out then rob the body... and steal you weapon.

Given the criminal's chances of running off and getting shot in the back, I'd leverage that you might eat lead.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I'll respond by referring you to the John Lott foundation and the research they've done showing the opposite to be true.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
If someone threatens you with physical harm, of course you have the right to defend yourself in any manner. It's more than just an inalienable right, it's a self evident truth.

I'm sorry, but it is not.

Me: Cj, I'm going to punch you in the mouth!

Cj: I'm going to shoot you dead, and it's perfectly appropriate that I do so.

...

Not a logical response to the level of the threat.

(I'm surprising myself a bit here, but... ) I disagree.

Certainly if someone only threatens to do you physical harm, you don't have the right to shoot them. But you have the right (and responsibility) to warn them how you will respond. And if they actually do attempt to hit you (do you physical harm), then I feel you have the right to defend yourself with any level of force you choose (including killing them if necessary). After all, you can die from being hit in the head, whether it be a fist a brick or a bat (this has happened to spectators at Massachusetts youth hockey games).

I suppose it's a definitional game; what does 'threaten' mean?

I don't believe you have the right to respond to 'threats' with deadly force. Now, if someone is attacking you, and you pull out your weapon and say 'attack me and you are going to get lit up,' that's one thing; you are responding to a threat with a threat of your own.

Let's say that you yourself instigate a fight, and the other guy hits you first; are you then allowed to pull out a gun and shoot him? I think not. And so we find ourselves in a really tricky situation, one in which having everyone walking around armed is not helpful...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's say that you yourself instigate a fight, and the other guy hits you first; are you then allowed to pull out a gun and shoot him? I think not. And so we find ourselves in a really tricky situation, one in which having everyone walking around armed is not helpful...

Cycloptichorn

Get a handgun and a CCW, I think you'll learn something.

Oh, wait, you live in Commiefornia. Never mind.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I'll respond by referring you to the John Lott foundation and the research they've done showing the opposite to be true.

Nice, but the criminal has already shot you, and taken your wallet. By time you are identified, he will have already sold the gun, used your credit cards and ditched the rest in the river.

Too bad you weren't the badass you thought you were.
K
O

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's say that you yourself instigate a fight, and the other guy hits you first; are you then allowed to pull out a gun and shoot him? I think not. And so we find ourselves in a really tricky situation, one in which having everyone walking around armed is not helpful...

Cycloptichorn

Get a handgun and a CCW, I think you'll learn something.

Oh, wait, you live in Commiefornia. Never mind.

But, you forget that I recently moved from Texas. I know plenty of people who have CCW licenses. And I'm pretty sure that I am correct on this one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's say that you yourself instigate a fight, and the other guy hits you first; are you then allowed to pull out a gun and shoot him? I think not. And so we find ourselves in a really tricky situation, one in which having everyone walking around armed is not helpful...

Cycloptichorn

Get a handgun and a CCW, I think you'll learn something.

Oh, wait, you live in Commiefornia. Never mind.

But, you forget that I recently moved from Texas. I know plenty of people who have CCW licenses. And I'm pretty sure that I am correct on this one.

Cycloptichorn

Whether or not you are right (from a legal perspective) depends on which state you are referring to. Here in MA, you can only meet force (i.e. a threat) with equeal force (or just enough force to over-come the threat). If someone punches me I am permitted to punch him back. I can only use deadly force if deadly force is used against me and I have no opportunity to flee. Thus is state law.

In other states you can use overwhelming force to counter a threat.

This is, in large part, what the whole "castle doctrine" debate is about.

0 Replies

So in a state like MA if you are armed with a gun and approached with a knife, seems like a gun is more of a burden.

You must flee, or try to.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

So in a state like MA if you are armed with a gun and approached with a knife, seems like a gun is more of a burden.

I think most prosecutor's would see them as equeals. Both would be deadly weapons... But it would be a judgement call for the prosecutor and possibly a judge/jury.

Quote:

You must flee, or try to.

Oddly, yes... Even if I am approached by someone with a gun and I have a baseball bat I'm obligated to try and flee before striking at them with the bat. Self defense is only allowed as a defense in MA if you are put in a situation where you can't flee. If you have the opportunity to flee you are expected to use it as your first course of action.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

engineer wrote:
The recent supreme court decision that surprised me was this one. The court ruled that a report a woman had with police officers prior to her death saying that her boyfriend was threatening to kill her was inadmissible after he really did kill her because he couldn't cross examine her. It seems like someone saying "he's trying to kill me" would be very relevant to a murder trial. The defendent could cross the police officer as to the victim's frame of mind or trustworthiness to try to refute the statement.

You've simplified the case here and in doing so left out the relevant parts of it.

The rules of hearsay evidence are pretty limited and the applicable issue in that case was that accused had take some action to prevent the person from appearing at the trial. You end up in a catch-22 here.

The trial court, in this case, decided that Giles killed her and as a result forefitted his right to confront his accuser. But under the Constitution, when one is accused of a crime they are presummed innocent until proven guilty.

The trial court allowed the statements on the basis that Giles killed his ex-girlfriend which prevented her from testifying in court. To get to that stage the trial court would have had to presume that Giles was already guilty at that point. IOW, they decided in advance that he was guilty in order to introduce evidence to attempt to prove that he was guilty.

If the trail court maintained that Giles was innocent until proven guilty then there is no evidence that he intended to prevent her from testifying and the exemption to the hearsay rule isn't applicable.

But there wasn't anything in the ruling that prevented the police from testifying that a statment had been filed... I don't know if they testified at the original trial or not. But the police can only testify that the statement was given to them, under what conditions and then what they did with it. The fact that a statement is given to the police isn't proof that what is in the statement is true so the police can't testify that that effect one way or the other.

But the fact that he did kill her was not in question. He claimed self-defense and since she is dead, there is no way for her to testify. If he killed her expressly to prevent her from testifying, her statement is admisible. I would say that since she cannot testify directly due to his actions (whether the intent was concerned with her testimony or not), it should be admisible. I'm not a legal scholar and I agree that someone should be able to challenge the testimony against them, but this guy's actions prevented that challenge from being possible.

0 Replies

My Dad always told me "You never want to be dead right".

0 Replies

Which reminds me of the line:

"I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6".

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Which reminds me of the line:

"I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6".

Who said you have to choose?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't believe you have the right to respond to 'threats' with deadly force. Now, if someone is attacking you, and you pull out your weapon and say 'attack me and you are going to get lit up,' that's one thing; you are responding to a threat with a threat of your own.

I agree so far.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let's say that you yourself instigate a fight, and the other guy hits you first; are you then allowed to pull out a gun and shoot him? I think not. And so we find ourselves in a really tricky situation

Agreed. It's really tricky. But that's why we have courts and laws, to weed through the tricky stuff. The cut-and-dry stuff usually doesn't make it that far.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

, one in which having everyone walking around armed is not helpful...

I'm not convinced of your conclusion here. You don't really know the end result of "everyone walking around armed". It's a social experiment we can't run. It might be that there would be more lethal encounters as a result of disagreement. But it's also entirely possible that people would be more cautious about instigating fights in the first place if the encounters were likely to be lethal. And that might result in better behavior in general, and far fewer physical encounters than we currently have. I don't know the answer to that societal experiment. Nobody does.

0 Replies

USSC Out of Touch?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know