Poll: What is self defense?

[shortylickens]

When it comes down to it, it'll be what you can convince the jury of. If you have pictures from afterwards showing you bloodied, it'll be easier for them to believe your fear. On the other hand if you were a big guy fighting a smaller guy, it's going to be harder to convince them you feared for your life. Though I guess there could also be cases where the DA doesn't even bother to bring charges.

as has been stated repeatedly all over the news and tv and internet, the judge and lawyers have a HUGE influence on what juries see and perceive. And if anybody ever had a sympathetic judge and half-assed lawyer, it was Kyle Fucking Rittenhouse.

 

[MrSquished]

If a black man gets killed by a white man, and there is no video, and the black man is not famous or very very wealthy, the white man will get off. 99% of the time. It doesn't matter who started the altercation, or how, all it takes is the white guy, or is in this case the racist white guys, to claim self-defense, and they will not be charged.

As we saw in this case, there were no charges until a video got leaked. The simple fact is in America. Racist whites can murder blacks and get away with it if it's not caught on video.

 

[railer]

There is no straight forward answer to this scenario. How exactly did the "fight break out"? Did you start it? If you smacked someone because you didn't like the question that they asked, then you still started it. If someone touched you, and you respond by throwing them to the ground and pummeling them, then you're still the aggressor. If the person who questions you is a moronic trumper with a mullet, and you can actually see his 1984 Camaro up on cinder blocks in the front yard of his trailer park home, but he tells you to stop while pointing a gun at you, and you are shot dead while trying and disarm him, well then it's 50/50 as to whether it's self defense or not. But moot point by then.

 

[shortylickens]

There is no straight forward answer to this scenario. How exactly did the "fight break out"? Did you start it? If you smacked someone because you didn't like the question that they asked, then you still started it. If someone touched you, and you respond by throwing them to the ground and pummeling them, then you're still the aggressor. If the person who questions you is a moronic trumper with a mullet, and you can actually see his 1984 Camaro up on cinder blocks in the front yard of his trailer park home, but he tells you to stop while pointing a gun at you, and you are shot dead while trying and disarm him, well then it's 50/50 as to whether it's self defense or not. But moot point by then.

There is, but the GOP has done a marvelous job bending and twisting reality to suit their needs since at least Fox News was born.

The situation OP was talking about is George Zimmermans. He was on neighborhood watch one night (a job that grants you no special privileges or duties) and saw a black teen walking around "his" town. He chased the kid down, threatened him, attacked him, got his ass kicked, then shot the kid and claimed self defense.
And yes, even though the law says that is definitely not self-defense, millions of white fascists in America supported him and his actions. The law says you can not pick a fight then murder someone in self defense. And yet people do it a lot in this country.

 

[railer]

There is, but the GOP has done a marvelous job bending and twisting reality to suit their needs since at least Fox News was born.

The situation OP was talking about is George Zimmermans. He was on neighborhood watch one night (a job that grants you no special privileges or duties) and saw a black teen walking around "his" town. He chased the kid down, threatened him, attacked him, got his ass kicked, then shot the kid and claimed self defense.
And yes, even though the law says that is definitely not self-defense, millions of white fascists in America supported him and his actions. The law says you can not pick a fight then murder someone in self defense. And yet people do it a lot in this country.

I get all that...but picking a fight can mean a million different things to a million different people. And at the end of this altercation if one guy is dead and one is not, and the evidence is unclear, then the phrase "history is written by victors" comes into play.

 

[theeedude]

Self (and community) defense is what us liberals need to start seriously thinking about, now that we know armed people can come in from outside and kill with impunity.

 

[Jaskalas]

And many of you say Arbury should have just complied with the white men. What gave them that inherent authority?

The gun. Duh.

What you're describing here seems similar to, and is certainly a lot milder than, what the McDaniels did to Arbery, and yet every right-winger is saying the McDaniels acted in self-defense.
Why the difference?

Video shows that, yes, he did act "in self defense".
A technicality countermanded by the fact that he chased down and attacked Arbery.

 

[Jaskalas]

There are no witnesses. Is that a valid self defense claim? My overall question is it allowed to start a confrontation with someone, start to lose that confrontation and use that as a predicate for shooting? Should that be allowed in this country?

Re: The bolded. Is there no evidence whatsoever?
Aggressor is the guilty party. Whether they be alive or dead. But as we can plainly see, even direct video evidence of the attacker is not enough for Democrats. Where as that is the ONLY thing that matters to me.

If your poll assumes I cannot know who the aggressor is based on evidence, or lack thereof, then it is self defense. No evidence to prosecute with. OTOH, demonstrate to me who the attacker is and either hang them or spit on their grave.

 

[HomerJS]

Re: The bolded. Is there no evidence whatsoever?
But as we can plainly see, even direct video evidence of the attacker is not enough for Democrats.

What the hell are you talking about. Were you in a coma when video released those white guys hunt down Arbury like a runaway slave??

In fact it is righties who claim Arbury should have stopped, hung his head and said "yes, massa" when given orders by the white man.

 

[zinfamous]

I get all that...but picking a fight can mean a million different things to a million different people. And at the end of this altercation if one guy is dead and one is not, and the evidence is unclear, then the phrase "history is written by victors" comes into play.

not really. most adults, throughout history, understand that if you pick a fight, you deal with the consequences that you created. That's on you. The end.

The bitch babies that make up the GOP in this country have turned it around so that they now believe that if they pick a fight, it is now their duty to murder anyone that was involved or witnessed the fight, because that is justice in their mind. They aren't adults. They aren't men. They are useless self-hating children that have systematically perverted justice to defend their broken, disadvantaged personalities.

 

[Vic]

The gun. Duh.



Video shows that, yes, he did act "in self defense".
A technicality countermanded by the fact that he chased down and attacked Arbery.

It's not a technicality. The law states that a claim of self-defense is invalid for the instigator of the altercation.

 

[echo4747]

There is, but the GOP has done a marvelous job bending and twisting reality to suit their needs since at least Fox News was born.

The situation OP was talking about is George Zimmermans. He was on neighborhood watch one night (a job that grants you no special privileges or duties) and saw a black teen walking around "his" town. He chased the kid down, threatened him, attacked him, got his ass kicked, then shot the kid and claimed self defense.
And yes, even though the law says that is definitely not self-defense, millions of white fascists in America supported him and his actions. The law says you can not pick a fight then murder someone in self defense. And yet people do it a lot in this country.

Just to be accurate:
-As far as Zimmermans case goes... Only part of your post is true: on neighborhood watch one night (a job that grants you no special privileges or duties) ; was getting his ass kicked; shot the kid; claimed self defense .... all true
-chased the kid down; threatened him; attacked him.... none of these were proven true (If these things were true .. GZ would have surely been found guilty)

 

[shortylickens]

I get all that...but picking a fight can mean a million different things to a million different people. And at the end of this altercation if one guy is dead and one is not, and the evidence is unclear, then the phrase "history is written by victors" comes into play.

Its not unclear. Zimmerman explained exactly what he did. The facts are not in question. His motive is. same with Kyle.

 

[HomerJS]

Its not unclear. Zimmerman explained exactly what he did. The facts are not in question. His motive is. same with Kyle.

I'm wondering how many people being chased by a man with a gun would not consider that a threat?

Yet in the case of KR he was being chased by an unarmed Rosenbaum yet the armed KR was threatened??

Can anyone make sense of that??

 

[railer]

not really. most adults, throughout history, understand that if you pick a fight, you deal with the consequences that you created. That's on you. The end.

In every state in the US, if someone bumps you, or shoves you, or asks you a question you don't like, and you then proceed to beat them to death with your fists, then you are a murderer. There's nuance to everything, but it's difficult to properly convey that nuance in an internet forum or any online online comment section. That's why it's so common for people who agree on 99.9% of topics to be separated into 2 opposing sides, hurling insults at one another. That plus people just like to argue, and the media makes a killing when people are fired up and angry.

 

[eelw]

In every state in the US, if someone bumps you, or shoves you, or asks you a question you don't like, and you then proceed to beat them to death with your fists, then you are a murderer. There's nuance to everything, but it's difficult to properly convey that nuance in an internet forum or any online online comment section. That's why it's so common for people who agree on 99.9% of topics to be separated into 2 opposing sides, hurling insults at one another. That plus people just like to argue, and the media makes a killing when people are fired up and angry.

Murderer whether by self defense, accidental or intentional, shouldn’t one be held accountable for their actions? And time served isn’t enough for Rittenhouse. And and civil suit isn’t enough punishment for his part that night.

And to the librarian story. Sure guy got run off the road. But one, he created the new threat by following. And two, he could have just rode away after she came back out with her gun. So he better get charged for2 deaths

 

[shortylickens]

I am seriously hoping somebody can make a good civil suit stick to Kyle. He's not going to get as much public support is civil court. Same with OJ. He was found liable for wrongful death. His civil case was not televised, stopping one of his biggest advantages, he didnt have his dream team anymore, his second big advantage, and he needed a lot more than just a sliver of reasonable doubt, his main advantage. Also no Mark Fuhrman to blame. Dont get me wrong, I hate Mark Fuhrman, but it still fucked up a perfectly solid case.

 

[Aikouka]

It's not a technicality. The law states that a claim of self-defense is invalid for the instigator of the altercation.

I would have suspected that was the case, but one of Legal Eagle's videos discusses how the initial aggressor is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense (depending upon circumstance). Ultimately, the biggest thing that gets me about his video is just how vague the idea of believing your life is in danger can be. For example, if I used deadly force after someone pushed me, I doubt that I'd be able to use self defense, but what if the person punched me and didn't seem to be backing off?

 

[shortylickens]

I would have suspected that was the case, but one of Legal Eagle's videos discusses how the initial aggressor is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense (depending upon circumstance). Ultimately, the biggest thing that gets me about his video is just how vague the idea of believing your life is in danger can be. For example, if I used deadly force after someone pushed me, I doubt that I'd be able to use self defense, but what if the person punched me and didn't seem to be backing off?

He IS allowed to use it if the jury acquits him, and that's why we have so many problems.
Fucking Zimmerman and his not guilty have opened the flood gates on all kinds of aggressive behavior.