Post
by Seth » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:44 pm
No, the law is not to blame, the person who violated the law is to blame. Whether or not the shooter violated the law is a matter for a jury to determine.
Retreat-to-the-wall statutes are very bad public policy because they embolden criminals and disadvantage victims, who to avoid prosecution have to flee from an attack before using deadly force, which grossly disadvantages them in a kill or be killed situation where only seconds make the difference between life and death. Society must NEVER give criminals the advantage, or any consideration for their safety for that matter, and laws must always favor the right of the victim to instant and decisive self-defense, including deadly physical force, where there is a reasonable and imminent likelihood of death or serious bodily harm impending. Most people forget the "serious bodily harm" part of the self-defense authority, and they forget that getting punched in the head can result in being knocked unconscious, which can itself result in severe brain damage (or other permanent injuries like blindness), but can also leave one vulnerable to being kicked in the head, which can result in severe brain damage and/or death.
Therefore, someone attempting to punch you in the face is engaging in an attack that has a high probability of resulting in serious bodily harm or death, particularly if it's a bigger or stronger assailant against a smaller, weaker or older victim, can easily raise a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force in self-defense is necessary.
But, a "reasonable belief" one is in danger is not, as the story implies, based on what the individual alone thought at the moment he fired, it's based on a somewhat vague "reasonable person" standard that asks, "What would a reasonable person in the same situation have done?"
Just because the shooter felt he was in danger doesn't mean the law is obliged to accept his judgment on the matter. It's a matter for a jury.
However, all that being said, it gets far more complex because most self-defense laws only allow self-defense if you are not the one instigating the violence. Then again, if the shooter approached the black kid and began to question him and the black kid, rather than simply walking away or ignoring the shooter, got angry at being accosted by a white guy and attacked the shooter, then it may well be the case that the shooter had legal justification to shoot the black kid, notwithstanding the fact that the kid was unarmed. In that case, it would depend on the exact circumstances and comparative physical abilities of the two people involved. I can see a situation where a strapping and strong 17 year old youth could easily put an older, frail man in fear of death or serious bodily harm just using feet and fists...many is the person who has died or been brain damaged in a fist-fight or assault, which is sufficient harm to justify the use of deadly force. In such a case, notwithstanding that the shooter approached the black kid and asked him what he was doing, which is not in and of itself an illegal or threatening act, an attack by the kid would trigger both the right of self-defense and the right of no retreat-to-the-wall.
So, things are substantially more complex than just the notion that some racist asshole white guy gunned down an innocent black teenager.
And that's why it should go to the Grand Jury to see if an indictment is warranted, and then to trial if the Grand Jury finds probable cause. That's what Grand Juries are for.
The real travesty here was that the police department did not simply refer the case to the DA and let the DA put it before the Grand Jury to decide whether to charge the shooter or not. That definitely smacks of racism on the part of the police department, which is more of a worry than the law.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
